Capital One/Cabot

[MrsD]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

my gut says this is one of the following

a halfwit junior blindly sending out letters because they don't know what else to do (and this most certainly happens)
b a deliberate attempt to mislead you into thinking there are proceedings and a debt which is due when there isn't
c Cabot kicking out like a wee spoiled child cos they know this is SB and they just can't resist one last kick to try to worry you

If it were me, I would be inclined to send a one liner asking them to read your previous two letters and to take careful note of the contents as they plainly haven't read them, enclose copies
sign it digitally

however, since it also says they are off to find some paperwork, you might just never hear from them again, but waiting to see if that happens would be a bit of a risk, I don't think they will go for court because the last thing they would want is to test their halfbaked theories about when a cause of action begins in a court.just my gut feeling here.

I had forgotten about the letter that Deepie has linked below, it covers most of the bases.................

[Deepie]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Have a look at this letter ----> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...l=1#post448450

This may help ....

[hello_people]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Thank you Deepie.

That was the letter that I had originally posted, and altered, in my initial post, but was advised that it was not relevant in my case?

[SA Gold]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Thank you Deepie.

That was the letter that I had originally posted, and altered, in my initial post, but was advised that it was not relevant in my case?

hi,
Perhaps this was because it was sent prior to their latest letters?
Im keeping my fingers crossed that this is just their last attempt to try-it-on with you.
Cheers
SA

[hello_people]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

So do you think there is any use in altering that letter to suit?

Or should I put in a formal complaint, then follow it up with the ombudsman in 8 weeks if no satisfactory conclusion?

Or something else altogether?

They've put the ball back in my court now with the line about hearing from me within 7 days but I don't want to get in a repetitive cycle of sending and receiving the same letters. My next letter needs to be the last before I have to go to ombudsman.

[SXGuy]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Personally im not sure if the ombudsman would rule on it being SB or not. They would leave that up to the courts. Personally I'd ignore them. If you are certain it's SB then any action they decide to take will be thrown out anyway. You have nothing to fear.

[hello_people]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

The only reason I mention the ombudsman is due to this paragraph in the template letter that I sent them a few weeks ago:

"Your initial claim would be rebuffed as unlawful and vexatious. I therefore do not expect to hear from you again, regards to this account. If I do then I shall be formally notifying the Financial Ombudsman Service of your harassment and also report your conduct to the FCA and ask them to investigate your suitability to retain a consumer credit licence, something I do hope we can avoid."

I've made it clear in that letter that I'm fully aware that the debt is statute barred and that any shenanigans will be dealt with accordingly. Them responding with a, more or less, identical letter to the first time I told them it was statute barred deserves one final letter, before following up with the previously-threatened actions (as above).

Basically I've told them what would happen if they tried it on again, and they have, so I think it is only right to follow through with the actions threatened in my last letter to them.

[SA Gold]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

They've put the ball back in my court now with the line about hearing from me within 7 days but I don't want to get in a repetitive cycle of sending and receiving the same letters. My next letter needs to be the last before I have to go to ombudsman.

Hi,
If its SB, then its SB. You know it, they know it. They are just hoping you cave in. If you have covered all bases as advised on this thread (please correct me if thats not the case), then i would be inclined to ignore them.
As for the Ombudsman, that's up to you, but if it were me, i would just be sitting out for SB and then let them waste as much time on it as they want. They will soon move on to some poor soul when they realise it aint going anywhere. Just my 2 pence worth.
Best
SA

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Hello Hello_there

What they seem to have done here, either deliberately or by accident, is send you the letter that they would send post claim after you've asserted it's Statute Barred.
So it's misleading on that point as a claim clearly hasn't been issued.
It's also misleading for them to state:

Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that 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.

The six year limitation period runs from the latest date on which:
1. A payment was made towards the debt; or
2. The agreement was terminated; or
3. You acknowledged the debt in writing.

They are trying to imply that this is factual and contained within the Statute of Limitations. Their numbered point 2 is purely speculation based on the case BMW v Hart, which specifically related to a non regulated Hire Purchase Agreement not a CCA Regulate credit card. To my knowledge there is no case law in the latter respect. Lowells have been trying this on recently too but seem to back off when challenged.

You've already sent the usual SB letters. They are "trying it on" by disputing them.
There is no template letter (yet) specifically for this but If it was me I would respond on the lines of:

Re Account number:
Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of your letter of xxxx re the above referenced debt in which you stated "We are instructed that in this case the cause of action accrued when the agreement was terminated on 22/03/2009. Thereforeproceedings were issued within the 6 year limitation period, and so the claim is not statute barred. If you disagree please explain why."

I find this most confusing as to date I have not received any claim form and to my knowledge no claim has been issued.
You also state :
"Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that 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.

The six year limitation period runs from the latest date on which:
1. A payment was made towards the debt; or
2. The agreement was terminated; or
3. You acknowledged the debt in writing."

Again I find this misleading as the Statute of Limitations, section 5 merely states:
" Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.
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."

Your numbered points are presumably your words, not Statute. I can only assume that point 2 is a reference to BMW v Hart, which concerned an unregulated Hire Purchase Agreement and applicable to that case only as it hinged on very specific terms within the contract. To my current knowledge this argument has not been proven to apply to a CCA regulated Credit Card agreement.

With respect I therefore reassert that this debt is irrefutably Statute Barred and refer you to the FCA Handbook, in particular:

"CONC 7.15.6 01/04/2014 FCA
A firm must endeavour to ensure that it does not mislead a customer as to the customer's rights and obligations. [Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]
CONC 7.1501/04/2014 FCA
It is misleading for a firm to suggest or state that a customer may be the subject of court action for the sum of the statute barred debt when the firm knows, or reasonably ought to know, that the relevant limitation period has expired. [Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]
CONC 7.15.8 01/04/2014 FCA
A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred."

I hope therefore that you will convey my stance to your client, upon which I expect collection activity to cease, and note that you have placed
the account on hold whilst still in default of my CCA Request.

Yours faithfully
xxxx

Just my opinion of course...see what others have to say

Elsa x

[hello_people]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

I quite like that letter, Undercover Elsa, thank you.

Whilst I am equally happy to sit back and say/do nothing, I also feel that I must reply with one final "F*** off, you're game is up, I know what you are trying to pull" letter, to which Undercover Elsa covers very well I think.

I will sit back and see if there are any further comments/opinions from other members, but my current plan is to send that letter .

[SA Gold]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

I quite like that letter, Undercover Elsa, thank you.

Me too!

Whilst I am equally happy to sit back and say/do nothing, I also feel that I must reply with one final "F*** off, you're game is up, I know what you are trying to pull" letter, to which Undercover Elsa covers very well I think.

ha ha! Elsa's excellent letter does just this.


Best
SA

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Hello Hello_there

What they seem to have done here, either deliberately or by accident, is send you the letter that they would send post claim after you've asserted it's Statute Barred.
So it's misleading on that point as a claim clearly hasn't been issued.
It's also misleading for them to state:


They are trying to imply that this is factual and contained within the Statute of Limitations. Their numbered point 2 is purely speculation based on the case BMW v Hart, which specifically related to a non regulated Hire Purchase Agreement not a CCA Regulate credit card. To my knowledge there is no case law in the latter respect. Lowells have been trying this on recently too but seem to back off when challenged.

You've already sent the usual SB letters. They are "trying it on" by disputing them.
There is no template letter (yet) specifically for this but If it was me I would respond on the lines of:

Re Account number:
Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of your letter of xxxx re the above referenced debt in which you stated "We are instructed that in this case the cause of action accrued when the agreement was terminated on 22/03/2009. Thereforeproceedings were issued within the 6 year limitation period, and so the claim is not statute barred. If you disagree please explain why."

I find this most confusing as to date I have not received any claim form and to my knowledge no claim has been issued.
You also state :
"Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that 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.

The six year limitation period runs from the latest date on which:
1. A payment was made towards the debt; or
2. The agreement was terminated; or
3. You acknowledged the debt in writing."

Again I find this misleading as the Statute of Limitations, section 5 merely states:
" Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.
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."

Your numbered points are presumably your words, not Statute. I can only assume that point 2 is a reference to BMW v Hart, which concerned an unregulated Hire Purchase Agreement and applicable to that case only as it hinged on very specific terms within the contract. To my current knowledge this argument has not been proven to apply to a CCA regulated Credit Card agreement.

With respect I therefore reassert that this debt is irrefutably Statute Barred and refer you to the FCA Handbook, in particular:

"CONC 7.15.6 01/04/2014 FCA
A firm must endeavour to ensure that it does not mislead a customer as to the customer's rights and obligations. [Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]
CONC 7.1501/04/2014 FCA
It is misleading for a firm to suggest or state that a customer may be the subject of court action for the sum of the statute barred debt when the firm knows, or reasonably ought to know, that the relevant limitation period has expired. [Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]
CONC 7.15.8 01/04/2014 FCA
A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred."

I hope therefore that you will convey my stance to your client, upon which I expect collection activity to cease, and note that you have placed
the account on hold whilst still in default of my CCA Request.

Yours faithfully
xxxx

Just my opinion of course...see what others have to say

Elsa x

Awesome letter Elsa. Nice one.

I'm in discussion with our solicitors over this because they're making dates up. If it's not the default date it's the termination date. No. Both are procedural and DO NOT classify as a Cause of Action.

I'll update later once I get confirmation that they're behaving unfairly and misleading debtors based on an irrelevant case law as BMW v Hart was explicit in that they handed in the keys this repudiated the agreement which created a cause of action. It's not relevant with s.77 / s.79 (cards & loans) as you can't repudiate these types of agreement.

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Thanks Niddy, glad you've asked the solicitors, we need a rebuttal template for this silliness. What next? The date it's recorded by the CRA's?

[Riz]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Lowells try that one every so often.

[hello_people]

Re: Capital One/Cabot

Letter sent today.

Thanks guys again for all the help, much appreciated .

I will update this thread upon receipt of next letter. I shall not be writing any more letters though, regardless of what it says.

Thanks again .