Capquest - New Tactics

[NorthernQuarter]

Dear All,

 

I've been dealing with the parasites at Capquest for a number of years now. Been through all the particulars of requesting a copy of the CCA for an alleged debt, which when provided was completely unenforceable. They continued to bombard me with letters containing the unenforceable CCA for over a year, I responded each time by recorded delivery stating I acknowledged no debt to them and that the CCA provided was unenforceable. Eventually they appeared to give up and I have no heard from them in nearly a year, until recently when I received this letter. Now I think it's just a mass mail out threat letter as usual but I've never seen one like this before so thought I would post it and ask for your kind opinion on what I should write back.

 

 

Letter From Capquest.

 

You have not responded to our previous letters. Your account has been passed through to the relevant pre-action validations and checks. Your account will be passed to our solicitors with instructions to commence legal action on or after (date) unless you have reached a satisfactory arrangement with us before then.

 

The claim will be issued in the name of (Original Creditor) and will be for the unpaid ballance of the above account. We want you to contact us with your proposals for payment by letter quoting reference 332A33 or by telephoning our experienced team (bunch of cretins) of collectors on (Number Provided) to discuss possible repayment options. You do not have to pay the full ballance immediately to avoid a claim being issued. We seek to agree an acceptable arrangement for payment over a period of time. We will allow you a further 14 days to contact us. If you do nothing then a claim will be issued without further warning to you. This will involve expenditure on court fees and solicitors costs which we will seek to recover from you.

 

Through the litigation process we will seek a judgement of the Court, directing you to pay the monies outstanding. If we are successful and it is necessary to do so, we will seek to enforce such judgement by a Warrant of Execustion which will result in a bailiff visiting your address.

 

We refer you to the Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct and particularly to paragraph 4 which allows xourt to impose sanctions on a party who does not comply with its requirements. We are willing to discuss with you any issues relating to our claim and seek to resolve any dispute through alternative dispute methods. Our preferred method is without prejudice discussion with you or your advisers.

 

(They then provided Independent Advice Organisation details)

 

Signed

illegible random signature

Capquest Debt Recovery Limited.

 

 

I always replied to their letters by recorded delivery of which I have copies and proof they received them. They haven't written to me since my last reply nearly a year ago. I was dealing in the end with a witch of a woman called Ms L Slater for over a year where many letters went back and forth and she even admitted that the CCA was unenforceable however that did not mean the debt ceased to exist.

 

What do you think I should do next, is this a bulk send out or are they seriously considering sending it to court knowing themselves they haven't got an executable agreement, I want to reply to the letter as if it ever did go to court at least I can show I always responded, I never ignored them (with variations of the same letter hundreds of times).

 

Would really appreciate any advise you may have.

 

Kind Regards

 

NQ

[Bazooka Boo]

All of these letters are computer generated, and as for this paragraph

Through the litigation process we will seek a judgement of the Court, directing you to pay the monies outstanding. If we are successful and it is necessary to do so, we will seek to enforce such judgement by a Warrant of Execustion which will result in a bailiff visiting your address.

They are way off the mark here and MUST be reported to the OFT&TS via http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/UsefulContactsByCategory/Governmentcitizensandrightscontacts/DG_195948

 

They CANNOT send out bailiffs just because they have won a court order, you first have to default on said court order or CCJ, then they have to go back to court, where a Judge will decide what is the best action to take in order to recover the money.

 

For that simple but intentional untruth i wouldn't even honour them with any response, they have shown that they are unfit to hold such a licence and the only people I would be getting in touch with is the OFT&TS and my local MP.

[citizenB]

IMHO, this is a tactic to get you to respond to them. You have proof that you wrote to them (I hope you did keep copies of letters and the recorded delivery slips?) and they know that you have responded to them.

 

I note that they say that any claim will be issued in the name of the Original creditor. This means they are acting only as a collection agent and not as Owner of the debt.

 

So it appears to me that they can recommend that the OC take action, but as the OC didnt take any action before passing it to CQ for harassment purposes, they might not proceed.

 

I suspect you will be advised by others to ignore.. but you could for your own peace of mind, just drop them a short note saying something like..

 

 

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated ???

 

I am surprised that you have resorted to telling untruths, you are well aware that I have responded to all letters sent by CQ. I am able to provide proof of this by way of Recorded Delivery slips and confirmation of delivery taken from the RM website.

 

I would further question your statement that any claim instigated will be made in the name of the Original Creditor, especially as you led me to believe in previous correspondence that you were in fact the Owner of this disputed account.

 

Furthermore, I suspect that it will be discovered that it is CapQuest who have failed to abide by the Pre Action Protocols.

 

I await further instructions from the Original creditor.

 

Etc, etct.

 

 

 

[citizenB]

Missed that BB, you are correct they cant and should most defintely be reported to the OFT for that alone.

[Bazooka Boo]

Yes yes, I said ignore, but that letter is one up em, send them that, 2nd class post but obtain "Proof of posting" from the PO counter....I always like to have the last word too...

Edited July 28, 2011 by Bazooka Boo

[Bazooka Boo]

Missed that BB, you are correct they cant and should most defintely be reported to the OFT for that alone.

 

Your response you penned does make reference to them telling fibs, so I would send them that, and enclose a few sugar coated Jam doughnuts too for added pleasure...

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, What information have you had from this so far,just the ''unenforceable''

CCA?

Do you still have a copy of it that you could post up?

This is probably just a threatogram.

Has a DSAR been done yet:madgrin:

[NorthernQuarter]

Hi Citizen B

 

I have letters from them stating that they have in fact bought this debt dating back to 2006. I did find that line in the letter odd, I think it's another trick, they do as far as i can tell actually own the alleged debt as they have recorded it on my credit file under CapQuest since 2006, the original creditor who I was in dispute with listed the debt on my file as paid.

 

Kind regards

 

NQ

[NorthernQuarter]

Hi BRIGADIER2JCS

 

I have posted it on here before (I have opened a new account as my old username contained my actual name and I know for a fact CapQuest frequent these forums).

 

When I posted it previously it was unanimously agreed by the good folk on here that it was completely unenforceable as it was missing some of the integral information to make it such. I'll see if I can find my original post to direct you to, it might still be there for you to look at. They have provided me with numerous copies of the CCA which they agree can't be enforced, and several copies of statements, no more than that really.

 

Kind regards

 

NQ

[NorthernQuarter]

Hi citizenB,

 

I think I will send your letter as well as reporting them, like I say I have always responded, and I would like them to explain how they feel after 5 years of harassing me for a debt they said they owned (and i convinced they do) that they appear no longer to own it

 

Kind regards

 

NQ

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

OK NQ, see what you can do it'll refresh old geezers like

me in the err memory department:madgrin:

[NorthernQuarter]

OK NQ, see what you can do it'll refresh old geezers like

me in the err memory department:madgrin:

 

Sorry BRIGADIER2JCS, can't find the original posts; I can rescan a copy at work and post it though if you're still interested to see it

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes please NQ.

[izzitme101]

It must be nice to have it in writing from them that its unenforceable

[NorthernQuarter]

It must be nice to have it in writing from them that its unenforceable

 

I was absolutely amazed they admitted that in writing, it hasn't stopped them perusing it though

[havinastella]

Just remember that a lot of 'unforceable' CCa's have been forced in Court.

 

You need to have a very strong defense nowadays.

 

Jogs

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I know it's frustrating but in law the debt still exists a stupid as it may seem

some one somwhere, some when signed an agreement the circle goes on:madgrin:

[NorthernQuarter]

Just remember that a lot of 'unforceable' CCa's have been forced in Court.

 

You need to have a very strong defense nowadays.

 

Jogs

 

I was under the impression perhaps incorrectly that once a CCA had been provided that was not properly executed then not even a court could enforce it. I know reconstituted ones are being enforced these days which they can't give me now. Besides I genuinely don't acknowledge any debt to CapQuest, if it went to court I'd defend.

[NorthernQuarter]

I was under the impression perhaps incorrectly that once a CCA had been provided that was not properly executed then not even a court could enforce it. I know reconstituted ones are being enforced these days which they can't give me now. Besides I genuinely don't acknowledge any debt to CapQuest, if it went to court I'd defend.

 

Just read into this a little, are you referring to the repeal of section 127 (3-5) of the CCA? Where an agreement was not enforceable if it did not contain all the prescribed terms can now be enforced? If so according to a few different sources this only affects agreements made after 6th April 2007, the one in question with my case is from 2002 so if this is correct the one they gave me remains unenforceable.

[havinastella]

Just read into this a little, are you referring to the repeal of section 127 (3-5) of the CCA? Where an agreement was not enforceable if it did not contain all the prescribed terms can now be enforced? If so according to a few different sources this only affects agreements made after 6th April 2007, the one in question with my case is from 2002 so if this is correct the one they gave me remains unenforceable.

 

No, not really.

 

Cabot have been taking people to Court for a few years now with Cap One agreements that are completely unenforceable.

 

If you get a poor Judge who has no idea of the law and you put up a poor defense, you lose.

 

There are more than a few cases on here.

 

Jogs

[NorthernQuarter]

No, not really.

 

Cabot have been taking people to Court for a few years now with Cap One agreements that are completely unenforceable.

 

If you get a poor Judge who has no idea of the law and you put up a poor defense, you lose.

 

There are more than a few cases on here.

 

Jogs

 

Thats awful, whats the point in having agreements like this and laws associated if those who are charged to judge over them don't abide by them.

[paeschendale]

Nice to see I am not the only one who got an exact copy of the very same letter word for word

Watching with great interest

[Bazooka Boo]

If it ever does end up in court, and lets face it after 5 years of willy waving they still haven't done so, then it will be up to you to educate the DJ if he is a particularly poor one.

[theghost]

All of these letters are computer generated, and as for this paragraph

They are way off the mark here and MUST be reported to the OFT&TS via http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/UsefulContactsByCategory/Governmentcitizensandrightscontacts/DG_195948

 

They CANNOT send out bailiffs just because they have won a court order, you first have to default on said court order or CCJ, then they have to go back to court, where a Judge will decide what is the best action to take in order to recover the money.

 

For that simple but intentional untruth i wouldn't even honour them with any response, they have shown that they are unfit to hold such a licence and the only people I would be getting in touch with is the OFT&TS and my local MP.

 

Its not an untruth though is it? Depending on how you read it - the key words being

 

"it is necessary to do so"

 

However, based on what you have said it could be a misleading.

[seen this before]

hides or omits material information,breach of the consumer protection unfair trading regulations 2008,at least it mentions "if" we are successful.

 

these letters have one purpose to intimidate and overwhelm those not aware of the law and their redress to such material.