2004 debt and cabot

[dantheman]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

Must owe you a large beer for this...

The hardest part is patience. You just want to fire something off. Then you start looking and asking. Then you get confused. But on your very sound advice and taking into consideration ODC excellent thoughts too. I will roll with the plan. Will be back when I hear from them.

D

[Curlyben]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

As ever, should the call or e-mail you, advise them that EVERYTHING must be in writing for the avoidance of doubt and you will not discuss this matter further without (in)appropriate advice.

[Algee]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

Curlyben

As you say, the DCA can update the OC original default when THEY acquired it. However, they cannot alter the date that the original default was entered, so did the OC enter a default or was it Cabot that defaulted dantheman?

Alan

[dantheman]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

That I can honestly say I don't know. The OC default is Oct 04. But I don not have written proof. Cabots default as placed by them was May 05. according to CurlyBen the OC date will be the first date of none payment. Therefore it doesn't - I think matter what Cabot place on the record.

[dantheman]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

I have a similar issue with Lowell and Capital One. The last date of payment is September 04, therefore the first month of Default of payment October 04, so the statute barred should be from Oct 10. However on issuing an s.5 to Lowell on 5th Jan 11, they have replied by saying, Your account is not unenforceable under the Limitations Act of 1980 on the basis that a default notice was served on you by Capital One on the 18th March 2005.

First point, I never received a DN.
Second point, I believe that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.” My interpretation is from first time you stop making payments and as CurlyBen has pointed out.

I am sure I will get more letters and they will turn up the heat. They can't do a thing unless they can prove payment - which I haven't - An acknowledgment - Which I am pretty sure of as I'm always confused as to what acknowledgment could be interpreted as. I passed the letters to a DMC and told them that I was passing the information regarding the alleged to them. They issued an s77/78 - which they received 20th August 2010. And now I haven't heard from them until 21st December.

So it's up to them Prove it one way or another. If they think they have a case, then they can take me to court. As far as I know the T&C was audited by the DMC at the time and breaches found. So they will have to be confident to believe it's worth it. They all do the same and it seems to be only a case of pressure. They can take me to court, but right now I haven't a pot to **** in!

D

[Curlyben]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

So I bet Lowell's haven't actually demonstrated how this is enforceable as per the s5 letter

Muppets, let it lie as well.

What do these "companies" expect when they purchase debt of this age !!

[dantheman]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

The whole letter states:
Your account is not unenforceable under the Limitations Act of 1980 on the basis that a default notice was served on you by Capital One on the 18th March 2005. Section 5 of the act mentioned says that following the date when a cause action arose for payment of the debt, any creditor such as Lowell PL has a period of six years to enforce a right to payment.

The date of the default notice is when the debt in this matter became due for payment in full and the period from which Lowell PL has to enforce their right to payment in the absence of any payment or written acknowledgement being made by you in between this date.

We trust... bla bla ... 14 days or else.

Read more at: 2004 debt and cabot - Page 2 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[ODC]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

Usual Crap from the Leeds Losers. You have told them its Statute Barred. If they keep chasing it remind them of the OFT Guidelines on the collection of Statute Barred debt as well as the Stated Case. They will get bored. The problem with them is they buy shed loads of SB debt for pennies and then come up with new ideas as to why they think it enforceable. A common tactic of theirs used to be inventing imaginary payments

[dantheman]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

I think your right although they say they have had this debt since the issue of the DN in March 2005 - which is why THEY say it isn't SB. Dirty MUNKIZ!

[Curlyben]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

TBH, you have already made you position clear and until they can PROVE otherwise there's nowt to say to them.

With regards Cabot and their response, as mentioned in PM, if they were so sure of their own claims then they would of filed action against you by now considering the alleged value.

I believe that neither DCA will take any further action as they KNOW just how shaky their case is. After all it's very easy to file a claim, so why haven't they done it yet. That fact does raise some very big questions..

I think your right although they say they have had this debt since the issue of the DN in March 2005 - which is why THEY say it isn't SB. Dirty MUNKIZ!

Well that's Bovine Excrement as OC's don't sell on the date of default. Debt sales go in cycles with bundles being sold at certain times several times a year.
We have seen this alot, especially with older debts were they appear to of laid dormant for ages and they another DCA raises their head and tries their arms on collection.

Who cares when they bought it, the time starts from your last acknowledgement either in writing or by payment.

This is yet another example of DCA's attempting to obfuscate the actual facts to "force" a payment.

[The Debt Star]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

just out nof curiosity, did you have any PPI sold with this credit? I see above that folk are saying don't bother with a SAR blah blah, but it might throw up stuff you can claim back?

[Curlyben]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

TBH BS, For now it's best to hold fire on further chasing as the DCA's have been made fully aware of the position and it is their obligation to prove otherwise.

Should the need arise, which I doubt, then go for the FULL reclaim, as there's most likely charges as well as PPI

[dantheman]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

I have to be honest and say that I don't think there was any PPI. And am sure the only course for the moment is to not reply and leav it to them - That despite the temptations to keep replying. If they can wave a heavy duty flag at me with some concrete evidence then I can return and see what the best course of action is.

Currently I have three actions against me. Lowell have made their attempt to confuse - but if they can't do anything because they must know it's SB - I should receive a series of death threat and worse until the 18th march when they know they have to go away. One point to make is that this does not appear on my credit file - work that one out!

Cabot is in for a little longer - I sent the original Curlyben prove it - they replied telling me my OFT rights but not answering the prove it part. I was going to to a follow up, but since having read all - I think again let them fire a few more shots. If they were going to take me to court they would have by now - I would not have wait 17 months. I assume as been has informed me before - there isn't enough in it for them.

I have checked the county files and I have no CCJs for any of them - Can they apply for a CCJ at this stage and get it? or because of the date, is too late?

Legal beagles is the mutz nutz - That is for sure.

[dantheman]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

I'm adding this because you may find it amusing.
I have checked back on Lowell Correspondence First contact is from Lowell Financial. From then on it's from Lowell Portfolio - Now they are threatening to send it over to their collection agent Lowell Financial - Think it should be Lowell Farcical!

[Curlyben]

Re: 2004 debt and cabot

Lowell have many different desk, including Lowell Financial, Portfolio, Red Debt and Hamptons (il)Legal, all part of the same firm.