Cabot problem re old CITI Card account

[tifo]

Citi ignore the FOS, so don't go that route, stick to your time table, 14 days after the letter before action file your court claim.

 

As i said, it's been to the FOS for 16 months and a decision has been made now, same as what the bank offers, as is usually the case.

 

Many people say, no, Citi are right to pay a DCA, but i don't accept this as the FOS haven't even contacted the DCA and Citi have no right managing my debts, no matter who they are with.

[tifo]

hmmm ... just noticed the spreadsheet now shows £4,956 with CI at 32.60% ... close to the limit and with my costs of time spent (about £500) would be over.

 

with stat CI it comes to £1,016, the bank has offered just short of this so i guess simple 8% interest.

[tifo]

as they have no agreement with prescribed terms (cabot still in default of s.78 request), should i seek to claim all that i have paid, interest/charges/fees etc, as restitution for money paid under a mistake, as an alternative to the charges?

[tifo]

An old account has reared its head again.

 

Citi assigned my account sometime in 2003/2004 and Cabot soon chased this up as it was assigned to them. Payments were made until 2007 when i requested a CCA agreement and nothing came back. Cabot didn't chase much after that, though the odd letter still came.

 

In 2007 I claimed charges/interest from Citi and this went to the FOS where the bank offered to pay around £980 and send this to Cabot. The FOS agreed but I didn't. Got a letter from Citi soon after saying that a cheque has been sent to Cabot.

 

I haven't heard anything on the account until today with Cabot informing me the account has been assigned to them with a balance of £1020 (includes the charges, PPI etc which was previously refunded).

 

I've rang Citi who can't understand that the account was assigned in 2003/2004 to Cabot and it's been through the FOS for the charges. They say it's now owned by Cabot and to contact them.

 

Rang Cabot who know the account was assigned to them before as they have both the old and new ref numbers attached to the account. They say the account was sent back to Citi when i raised the complaint. They agree it is now Statute Barred.

 

What seems to have happened is that Cabot sent (sold?) it back to Citi who've now sold it back to Cabot.

 

I've never had a Notice of Assignment from Cabot/Citi saying that they now sold/re-own/sent the account to Citi (assignment was equitable only) so how can Citi now sell something to Cabot which they don't own (as Cabot already owns it)?

 

Any advice please?

[dpick]

An old account has reared its head again.

 

 

Rang Cabot who know the account was assigned to them before as they have both the old and new ref numbers attached to the account. They say the account was sent back to Citi when i raised the complaint. They agree it is now Statute Barred.

 

Any advice please?

 

They admit statute barred tell them to bog off.

 

dpick

[Deb T]

I think i'd ignore Cabot altogether but I would also advise you tread with caution, if Cabot received a payment from Citi in respect of the charges and the amount paid

by Citi came off the Cabot balance...and you knew of this via the FOS...and this was all made in 2007 ..then technically speaking I do not think the debt is statute barred

and if you push the issue too much it may come back to bite you?

[huggy41]

interesting thread and situation but as tifo did not make the payment i cannot see how this would reset the SB clock. as the bank refunded the charges it just shows that they should not of been there in the first place.

[tifo]

if Cabot received a payment from Citi in respect of the charges and the amount paid

by Citi came off the Cabot balance

 

as the bank refunded the charges it just shows that they should not of been there in the first place.

 

.... then the new balance would be £40 because the refund was £980 on a balance of £1020.

 

and i guess the £40 is not due as well because Cabot seemed to have added some £600 of charges when they had the account and the balance as sold in 2003/2004 was around £900.

Edited October 1, 2010 by tifo

[tifo]

i'm interested in knowing if Citi can sell and Cabot can buy an account that's been sold and bought once before, sent back to Citi and now bought by Cabot again.

 

to send it back wouldn't Cabot need to REASSIGN it back to Citi (the same way Citi sold assigned it to them) so that it's once again legally owned by the bank and be sold (as it's been)?

 

if Cabot didn't assign it properly to Citi then it was still owned by them so Citi can't sell something they don't own and Cabot can't buy an account they're already bought 7 years ago. Otherwise banks would be selling, recalling and selling accounts again and again.

 

i've never had any notice that Cabot sold it back to Citi or that Citi bought it.

[tifo]

i think what's happened is that the bank refunded Cabot (who say they'd sent it to Citi before this) and the account was closed at Cabot but not Citi, who've now sold it again to Cabot. But by refunding Cabot the bank had said I don't owe them anything so why have they resurrected the account?

 

Citi did say a new 'Data Controller' was selling old accounts, looks like even those sold before!

[Deb T]

I think the courts (if it became applicable) would take the view that the alleged debtor was chasing costs on a debt thus acknowledging it exists and the payment made even if it were charges would

be seen as a payment off the debt....I suspect the payment would not be the primary issue but simply that the alleged debtor was chasing costs off the debt...if the debt was stat barred then why

chase at all?

[tifo]

I think the courts (if it became applicable) would take the view that the alleged debtor was chasing costs on a debt thus acknowledging it exists and the payment made even if it were charges would

be seen as a payment off the debt....I suspect the payment would not be the primary issue but simply that the alleged debtor was chasing costs off the debt...if the debt was stat barred then why

chase at all?

 

Whether its statute barred or not isn't the issue, the balance would not be much anyway. Also, the bank gave the refund and Cabot owned the debt, that's two separate companies. There's been nothing with Cabot for many years.

 

the issue is whether Cabot can 'sell' the debt back to Citi without informing me (as per s.136 LoP 1925) and whether Citi can sell a debt they (1) don't legally own or (2) if they do own it (i don't know how) can then sell it with a full balance again (having paid £780 towards it which would have almost paid it all off).

 

i.e. Cabot owned the account and Citi sent them £980 towards it. Cabot returned the whole account to Citi who have now sold it back to Cabot with £1020 (the alleged full balance). Where has the £980 gone and how were Cabot able to send the account back to Citi (or how were Citi able to own it again in order to now assign it again)?

[tifo]

if either Cabot or Citi now maintain a default on this balance (the one that's been sold) then this is clearly unlawful because i've already had a default around 2002 which cleared a few years ago, so they can't default me twice for an account.

 

i'll have to check but that would be a bigger mess ....

[huggy41]

you cannot have 2 defaults put on your credit file for the same debt the default falls off your file 6 years after being put on. if say after 5 years 11 months they sell the account to someone that person cannot put a new default in place and therefor restart the 6 years.

[Deb T]

I guess how it was assigned might be the issue, assigned full title (sold) or equitable etc, maybe the debt was sold once but simply transferred on the other occasions ...better explanation in below link

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Assigning%20a%20debt%20or%20contract%20Article.htm

 

You could always subject access cabot or citi or both , one of them at least should have statements of accounts (but no details a sale between them will be forthcoming but any assignment notices

should be showing/referenced. Importantly thought it should show your payments and where/when applied/reduced/deducted/added etc.

[Bazooka Boo]

You should only EVER SAR the Original Creditor, DCA's have next to no paperwork relating to alleged debts, and in any case even if they have bought them in a portfolio they will not have been given the complete history of the account, a SAR @ £10 a time is a pretty expensive business when it isn't at all necessary. SAR the OC, by all means, any other blood sucker gets the 'Prove it' letter.

[Deb T]

Under normal circumstances I would agree re SAR only the original creditor but where a debt appears to have been assigned and for a good amount of time and with so many discrepancies

in attendance then a SAR to the DCA come owner will or at least should point up where charges have been applied (statements) and what money has been paid on the account. It is likely

that Citi will have little or no paperwork give they assigned it almost 7 years ago whereas Cabot and Citi combined over the last few years should amount to some information being pointed

up from one or the other is sent a Subject Access.

 

 

You should only EVER SAR the Original Creditor, DCA's have next to no paperwork relating to alleged debts, and in any case even if they have bought them in a portfolio they will not have been given the complete history of the account, a SAR @ £10 a time is a pretty expensive business when it isn't at all necessary. SAR the OC, by all means, any other blood sucker gets the 'Prove it' letter.

[tifo]

I guess how it was assigned might be the issue, assigned full title (sold) or equitable etc, maybe the debt was sold once but simply transferred on the other occasions

 

They cannot 'sell' it once and transfer it on other occasions. Once it's legally sold, it's gone from them.

 

The account was legally assigned to Cabot in 2003 with the Notice of Assignment completing the transfer. After that notice, it did not legally belong to Citi and the default was maintained by Cabot until it expired after 6 years.

 

Cabot would then need to legally assign it to Citi in order for them to legally own it so that they can legally assign it again.

 

The process isn't as simple as Cabot returning the account to Citi who think they can assign it again. There are legal processes that have to be carried out before an account (chose in action / thing in action) can be legally owned. Otherwise banks would be assigning debts as many times as they want and that is an abuse of s.136 of the LoP 1925. If it applies to me it equally applies to them.

 

Any assignment in which notice hasn't been given to the borrower remains an equitable (i.e. not legal) transfer. And I didn't receive notice from Cabot that they've sold it to Citi (or they could have sold it to anyone else if they wanted) or from Citi that they've bought it. Therefore there was no legal transfer. This is very effectively used by banks when they sell mortgages but don't inform the borrower, therefore retain legal title. It's the same principle with any debt, no matter who the firm is.

[Deb T]

You're dealing with Cabot, they appear to pay scant regard to legal process and in my opinion continually squirm on 'technicalities' or even fundamental legal process, they pretty much seem

to do what they like with accounts, I know cos I'm right there with you on a couple of issues re an old account that Cabot are attempting to collect on as in they say it's been assigned and very

kindly provided me with a hashed up assignment notice from 2006 but I have confirmation from the original creditor that they still own the debt. I'm just waiting for Cabot to commit themselves

and then it's game on.

[tifo]

You're dealing with Cabot, they appear to pay scant regard to legal process and in my opinion continually squirm on 'technicalities' or even fundamental legal process

 

They can do what they want, the law still applies to them.

 

I have documents going back all those years.

 

It's a proven fact that Citi didn't own the account when, at the FOS, they offered to refund my charges to Cabot. Then they said payment will be sent to Cabot. This can be used in court as evidence. They'd have to show they owned it again after that in order to now sell it.

 

It's like a house, once you've sold it, the buyer can't just return it to you, they'd have to sell it and you'd have to buy it and legally transfer it in your name to sell it again.

[tifo]

i've raised a complaint with Citi and Cabot and after their response, it's off to the FOS.

[Deb T]

and after the FOS?

[tifo]

and after the FOS?

 

Nothing, let them deal with it. They might take me to court.

[Deb T]

In which case they'll have done exactly what they did in the knowledge that the alleged debtor wont be taking them to court...why should they play by the rules? I'm surprised

you expected any different from Cabot and if the end result is a simple complaint to the FOS (who for the most part are largely toothless) then Cabot will for the time being

continue on their way running rough shod over the likes of yourself.

[tifo]

I think it's a genuine mistake by Citi, they have their records mixed up, as do Cabot.

 

I have a paper trail proving who the owners were/are and what the balance was/is/should be. There's not much they can do. If it goes to court with the balance as it is, the refund of charges/interest will still come off it and there's hardly anything left. If they've defaulted me again, that's a different issue which needs taking up.

 

A decision by the FOS is legally binding on Citi. When they offered to refund Cabot and said they're sending them a cheque, and the FOS agreed, that became legally binding on them. They still have to pay that cheque, even if they didn't in the past, plus any interest for the past 2 years.