citifinancial issues

[Angel104]

I sent cabot a statue barred letter and in reply they have said that even though the last payment was in April 2005

they issued a default notice in April 2006

so therefore the limitation period starts from the date of the default notice.

 

I always thought it was from the date of the last pyment.

[dx100uk]

correct

silly spoofers!!

 

dx

[LostAtSea]

As I understand it the SB clock starts with the last payment or written acknowledgement by the debtor. Cabots Christmas wish list or whatever else they claim they issued is nether here nor there.

[Angel104]

Should I write and tell cabot that statue barred starts from the date of the last payment because they are getting nasty about it now.

[dx100uk]

you were requested on 23rd feb not to keep starting new threads

where a thread on a debt already exists.

 

again you've started TWO nwd threads on this already running debt this morning

please refrain from creating a new thread EVERY time you have a new issue with a debt

 

USE THE EXISTING THREAD! and update that.

 

you have over 65 threads all on a small number of debts.

 

i'm going through them now to merge them into understandable threads with a relevent title

 

please click on your GREEN user name to list your running threads

then choose one from the there

 

unless you're starting a thread on a NEW debt

not already posted about.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

Should I write and tell cabot that statue barred starts from the date of the last payment because they are getting nasty about it now.

 

IMHO

no its for them to prove its not SB not you to prove it is.

 

dx

[citizenB]

Should I write and tell cabot that statue barred starts from the date of the last payment because they are getting nasty about it now.

 

 

Please see quote below.. Cabot are WRONG..

 

Many DCAs will argue that limitation accrues from the time when the "default notice" is issued. It does not. Simple as that.

 

Limitation clock starts ticking from when the payment is due and not paid not when they send a default notice.

 

We see often that CRA entries will date 5 or 6 months ahead of when the payment was missed.

 

People need to be sure that they aren’t being hoodwinked and that the DCA is extending limitation so they can sue when they are not allowed to.

[Angel104]

Below is what I have received today from cabot. Should I just ignore it and are they right when they say it can go to court?

 

 

Dear

 

 

 

Your account is not statute-barred

 

You’ve stated that your outstanding balance is statute-barred because the cause of action in this matter began more than six years ago.

 

A default notice for this account was issued by CitiFinancial on the 28 April 2006 and as a result the limitation period runs from that date.

 

Therefore our right to recover the outstanding balance on this account is not statute-barred and we can take action through the courts to recover the outstanding balance.

 

 

In light of this information we request that you contact us within 14 days to disucss a suitable reapayment plan.

 

 

 

We look forward to spekaing with you.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Cabot Financial.

[t_k]

If you last made a payment before November 17th 2005 then it is stat barred = end of.

A reconstructed agreement does not undo that.

Report these clowns to the OFT and trading standards if they refuse to stop harassing you.

[citizenB]

They are wrong, pure and simple as I pointed out in post .

 

If they persist, tell them to look up

 

All England Law Reports/1992/Volume 2 /Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680

 

If they still persist, then ask them on what legislation are they basing their claim upon.. they will have to tell you anyway if htey decide to take it further.

[citizenB]

BTW, do you have a copy of the Defaut notice Citi were supposed to have issued ?

[DonkeyB]

Straight to the OFT and to your local trading standards.

 

They are telling a big, fat lie. Nothing less.

 

They are deliberately misleading you as to the true legal position. And not for the first time – I would say that brings it into the harassment arena, according to the OFT guidelines.

 

Make sure you complain long and loud.

[MARTIN3030]

Its strange that they are still chasing this given the age.

MH are usually doing the chasing for Cabot SB accounts.

[Bazooka Boo]

Bang to rights, hammer the hell out of them and complain to everyone, including your local MP, get them to raise the issue in the commons of DCA's deliberately and falsely exploiting a debtors lack of knowledge, OFT&TS are a definite fore gone conclusion, get onto them today!

[Angel104]

This is now the situation. TS were not much help and consumerdirect said even though cabot are in breach of the Administration of Jusice Act they do not get involved with individual cases.

 

In the meantime I am being bombarded with letters from cabot who I received a letter from yesterday saying they would pass the debt to an external debt collector. They are still insisting that statue barred runs from the date a deafault notice was issued I am getting so many letters it is now bordering on harrassment. And I am not sure what to do next.

[dx100uk]

let them

 

check your cra file

 

dx

[dx100uk]

ok i've now merged threads going back to 2007 about this dept

 

if no-one has issed a court claim against you - which they haven't

 

you need to totally ignore every letter or call you get until they do.

 

would be nice to see what your cra file now says about the debt too.

 

i have also renamed this thread

 

dx

[DonkeyB]

I think you must challenge them to put up or shut up.

 

Put the statute in a letter to them, and state that you regard this as the end of the matter.

 

State clearly that any further correspondence, other than to confirm the account is SB, will be deemed as harassment, and will result in immediate application for injunction.

[Angel104]

I have checked my CRA file and there is a default on it in cabots name. At no time have I ever received a default notice from anybody so how have they managed to do this. I have also received yet another letter from cabot saying that they stand by what they say and that statue barred runs from the date of the default notice and not from the last payment.

[Angel104]

This what they have now sent me.

 

We would advise you that we have set our position clearly and we re-iterate to you that the limitation period runs from the default date. Since your account defaulted on 28 April 2006, your account will not go statute barred until 28 April 2012.

 

We would also like to add that if someone has informed you that statue barred runs from the last payment then whoever is giving you that information is wrong.

 

We can also advise you that we have now escalated your account within our collections process.

 

We trust this clarifies the matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Cabot Financial

[DonkeyB]

You must complain straight away to TS and the OFT. It is Cabot who are wrong - they are misleading you as to the true situation.

 

If the default date (notice they don't appear to specify whether they mean the date a default accrues, or the issue of a DN) were the measure, nobody would ever default an account!

[DonkeyB]

I think maybe the best thing is to invite them to take you to court. They first threatened court in August 2010, so why haven’t they acted?

 

That is two untruthful and deliberately misleading letters they have sent.

 

The first stated wrongly that their reconstructed agreement will stand up in any court. Well, not necessarily. Satisfying a s 78 request is not the same as satisfying ss 61, 65 and 127. And anyway, it’s up to a judge. They have relied on the ‘well, you had the money, so you must have signed something.’ There is case law now to disprove this notion, notably Harrison v Link Financial, where Mr Harrison proved MBNA were mistaken in there assertions that their systems were infallible. Cabot have still failed to produce even a signed application form. If you do not recall signing anything, or did not sign an agreement with the T&Cs present at the time, you must say so.

 

They may have complied with a s 78 request. What exactly did they send you all that time ago? Can you describe the documents? Blank app form? T&Cs from when the account was opened and when it was closed? Was your name and address printed anywhere?

 

Secondly, they continue to claim that the default date is the cause of action for SB. I’ve checked back through your thread, and this is the date that Citi issued a Default Notice – not necessarily the date the account was defaulted. What date is recorded as the default date with the CRAs? Anyway, you deny emphatically that you received a DN, and they cannot supply a copy, let alone demonstrate that its contents were compliant with s 87.

 

Your last payment was in April 2005 and they claim a DN was issued in April 2006. The ICO has made clear that this would be unfair anyway, and a default should be recorded with the CRAs within six months max of the default occurring – so October 2005 is the latest a default should have been recorded with the CRAs (allowing a month for you to miss a payment). As well as the ICO’s guidelines, you have the detail of the judgment posted by CB to rely on:

 

Swansea City Council -v- Glass [1992]

 

A tenant complained that the landlord was failing to repair the house, and so the local authority carried out the repairs. It sought to recover the costs from the defendant, but he claimed their claim was time barred, being more than six years after the work had been concluded. The authority argued that it was not more than six years from when it had served the demand notices. Held: The notices were not the cause of action, but only a condition precedent to bringing an action. Accordingly time ran from the conclusion of the works, and the claim was out of time.

Housing Act 1957

 

In other words, the cause of action is not when a piece of paper is arbitrarily issued. You must quote this at Cabot.

 

From what you have posted, it looks like Citi did not actually record a default, but Cabot instigated one. They cannot do this – they can only take over an existing default. If they have simply taken the issue date of the alleged DN and made that the default date, then you have cause for complaint and, I believe, a claim for compensation for recording false and defamatory data. Please check your credit file and tell us the date that Cabot have recorded with the CRAs as the default date.

 

Did you ever send an SAR to Citi as advised in Jan 11 by Coledog?

 

They have also added over £2500 in interest without, probably, proving that they are allowed to do it by showing the agreement.

 

Would you like me to compose a nasty letter for Cabot pulling all this together?

[DonkeyB]

And for reference for Caggers, here’s some good stuff from Francis Bennion re statutes.

 

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1993/1993-002-aelr-1992.pdf

[dx100uk]

silly crapbot

 

'please take me to court, i will no longer be conversing with you be any means than through a judge'

 

get reporting them

 

and they've put it in

b&w too!!

 

 

nail - coffin - lid

 

dx

[DonkeyB]

Cabot are behaving as though they are desperate to joins the legions losing their licences. Keep it up, chaps!