Cabot Financial- prove it sent help with their reply

cowboy541

Hi all,

Thanks for taking the time to read the following

So my partner received a couple of letters from Cabot financial last month, first I knew of these. One was for supposed personal loan and another for credit card debt

Both of these debts defaulted way back in around 2009, then they were sold to Cabot.

Through various phone calls and letters that my partner didnt let me know about decided to set up[ monthly payments back in 2019 and with health reasons lost her employment back in 2021. She then stopped the monthly payments to Cabot having cleared probably £2500.


I sent the prove it letters last month, along with asking about statute barred as she didnt tell me about having been making payments.

The reply from cabot stated that as the accounts defaulted by the bank and loan company so long ago they did not have proof that my partner was responsible for these!  However as she had been making payments (after being hounded by them), and the payments to cabot only stopped a couple of years ago they both do not qualify for being statute barred

Is there anything else we can do?   My thinking is that unless they can prove my partner specifically owes these then then there is still an argument?

Thanks in advance for any help

fatbelly

As usual, Cabot are giving false information. Whether they do this deliberately or out of rank ignorance and incompetence is hard to say.

Limitation Act 1980 s29(7) clearly says that a right of action, once barred, shall not be revived by further payment or acknowledgement.

So if there was a 6-year period of no paymnt after 2009 then the account is statute barred and stays that way.

You can stop paying but have no legal right to reclaimrecent payments. This assumes you live in England/Wales

cowboy541

So if We send a letter to cease further contact they have to refrain from this?

sourcrates

cowboy541 said:

So if We send a letter to cease further contact they have to refrain from this?

Yes and no, a recent review of the limitation act has agreed that when a debt is clearly statute barred, the creditor should accept that, and desist from collection activity, its more a wishy washy guideline than an outright line in the sand, unlike Scotland, when a debt there becomes prescribed, it no longer exists, and they cannot chase it, any payments made to a prescribed debt in Scotland must be refunded.

Go with a simple letter to the effect of : "the debt is statute barred under section 5 limitation act, 1980, payments that were made after the fact do not revive the debt, and it stays time barred, therefore I will not be making any kind of payment" etc etc.

fatbelly

cowboy541 said:

So if We send a letter to cease further contact they have to refrain from this?

Conc 7.15.8 says exactly that.

If Lowell wish to dispute SB status they must start a court claim, which might be difficult for them to fight as they have admitted they have lost their evidence

cowboy541

thanks for the help, so one they replied saying that due to amount paid they would close that account
The other they came back saying that it wasnt statute barred due to payments (that was correct), however they stated they couldnt provide a signed copy of the agreement and still wanted paying.

Sent a further letter to them with a cheque for £1 asking for them to provide a signed copy of the agreement with original lender, to which they have replied they cant provide it at this time. They also stated that it is un-enforceable in court but the debt still exists.

So do we just leave it at that or do we send a further letter to refrain from further contact?

Thanks in advance

fatbelly

Personally I'd leave it at that. Both are unenforceable as things stand, for separate reasons

Well done

If they do find or reconstruct the agreement, then that account is also statute barred if there ever was a six-year period of no payment, regardless of whether payments recommenced. I referred to that in my earlier post.

Cabot may not like it but that if the law, unfortunately for them.