Cabot County Court Claim Form

[debt_mountain]

For this particular case and any that follow the same formula is it not wise to highlight to the court that Cabot have failed in their duties to ensure the debt is owned by the debtor and is truly enforceable. As they have sent the it will take us 8-10 weeks blah blah they have obviously not initiated the enforcebility check in advance of a court claim.

I would think this would be a BIG mistake in the eyes of the court.

[joghuj]

Originally Posted by debt_mountain

For this particular case and any that follow the same formula is it not wise to highlight to the court that Cabot have failed in their duties to ensure the debt is owned by the debtor and is truly enforceable. As they have sent the it will take us 8-10 weeks blah blah they have obviously not initiated the enforcebility check in advance of a court claim.

I would think this would be a BIG mistake in the eyes of the court.

I had something along those lines in my placeholder defence kindly provided by Tomterm or is it the fact that they have not initiated an enforceability check that you think should be made more prominent?

"On 8th June 2007, I requested the disclosure of information vital to this case from the claimant, in respect of each alleged debt the Claimant has failed to produce any of the information requested, and has informed me it will require as many as 8 or more weeks to furnish this information. The requested information includes copies of any default or termination notices, A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on"

[debt_mountain]

OFT are not going to be too pleased about them hitting you and then asking questions later.

It is probably worth contacting OFT and CAB and asking a little more about this.

I feel that if the court were asked to comment of the fact that Cabot put debtors through hell and the worry of court but have failed to ensure they can actually do so.

[joghuj]

Originally Posted by debt_mountain

It is probably worth contacting OFT and CAB and asking a little more about this.

I've not spoke to anyone at OFT or CAB before, do they correspond through email or only phone or what?

[tomterm8]

You mean, something like:

Case Manager

In the matter of XX Vs Joghuj

Claim No: XXXX

In Court Name

Your Address

Date

Court Address





Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you to request that the court use its discretionary powers under the civil procedure rules to strike out the above claim since I am embarrassed in responding it for the following reasons:

1. The claim does not show any cause of action.

The claim does not describe the nature of any default, does not reference the terms and conditions allegedly broken or provide evidence of any breach, neither does it indicate that the proper procedures for notifying this default have taken place as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

2. The claimant does not have any right of action.

All claims relate to credit agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Only a Creditor or Owner of the debt is entitled to seek a court order to enforce a debt under the consumer credit act, 1974 s141. I enclose a letter (Letter A) which is a template letter sent in relationship to accounts no XXXXX and no XXXXXX in which the claimant states that it is not the creditor for the purpose of the Consumer Credit Act, 1974 since it has allegedly acquired only the rights and not the obligations under the alleged credit agreements.

For the purposes of the act, a new owner is not created by the assignment of the rights (but not the duties) of a creditor. I refer to the definition of owner in s189(1) of the act:

“owner ” means a person who bails or (in Scotland) hires out goods under a consumer hire agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer hire agreement, includes the prospective bailor or person from whom the goods are to be hired;




3. The claimant has failed to provide proper notice of court action

The claimant failed to provide me with proper notice of proceedings, in order to investigate this claim. On 29th May 2007 two template letters from Hodsons Solicitors in respect of accounts no XXXXX and no XXXXXX. These letters were received by the defendant on the 7th June. This letter requested payment within 7 days from letter date or Court proceedings will be issued. I enclose this letter. (Letter B)

This letter was not in the prescribed form for a default notice under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and did not give the proper notice period required in such a default notice. In any case, despite giving 7 days notice to rectify any alleged default, the Claimant issued its claim on or before 1st June.

Point 4.3(c) of the pre-trial protocols states that the claimant
"
ask for a prompt acknowledgement of the letter, followed by a full written response within a reasonable stated period;


(For many claims, a normal reasonable period for a full response may be one month.) "

and Point 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) require that such a letter:

"4.3 The claimant's letter should –
(a)give sufficient concise details to enable the recipient to understand and investigate the claim without extensive further information;
(b)enclose copies of the essential documents which the claimant relies on;"


No opportunity was given to me to investigate any of these claims. Further, the claimant failure to provide a copy of the credit agreement both with the initial claim letter, and after a reasonable request for disclosure despite its apparent statutory duty under the consumer credit act 1974 to provide the credit agreement or, if not the creditor, to request that the creditor supplies the credit agreement and to abide by the OFT Debt Collection Guidance which states that they must halt collection procedures while investigating a reasonable dispute.

4. The claimant did not investigate whether there was an enforceable claim before starting court action.

Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 a consumer credit agreement made before April 2007 is not enforceable unless a legible document containing all the prescribed terms and signed by the debtor exists. The claimant has been asked to supply these documents with respect to each account it claims is in default on numerous occasions and has failed to do so.

5. Failure to include all persons entitled to the remedy

Cabot has claimed that they are entitled to apply for judgement in this matter, and that the original creditor under the alleged agreement in relationship to acount no's XXXX and XXXX retains the duties under this agreement. Since the creditor would be entitled to the same remedy, this claim is improper as it does not include the Creditor as a party to the action. I quote the civil procedure rules:

19.3 (1)Where a claimant claims a remedy to which some other person is jointly entitled with him, all persons jointly entitled to the remedy must be parties unless the court orders otherwise.

If the court decides not to strike out the claim, I would ask that the court order disclosure by the claimant on its own initiative, and in respect of each debt claimed, since the claimant is currently frustrating proceedings by failing to provide crucial information that I have requested in order to pursue my defence and counter claim, and has stated that it may take as many as 10 weeks to provide this information. I enclose a copy of the request for information, and the response of the Claimants solicitors. (Letters C & D )


Thank you for your help in this matter,

Yours truly,

XXX.

Enc –
A – Leter dated XXX ( response claiming not the creditor)
B- Letter dated XXX ( letter before action)
C – Leter dated XXX ( Request for Disclosure )
D – Letter dated XXX (letter saying it will take them 8-10 weeks to provide information)


EDIT: added point 5. That'll fox cabot lol.

[tomterm8]

OK. Very weird. The last section isn't meant to be in bold, and isn't in bold when I use the edit window.

Oh, yeah, send copies of letters & not originals.

[joghuj]

****, that's good Tomterm. I've had acknowledgement of the "placeholder" defence received at the court today. When should I be thinking of sending this?

[debt_mountain]

That covers it. Excellent "placeholder"

[tomterm8]

Might as well send it today or tomorrow.

[debt_mountain]

I would send it now, you can never send too much of this sort of stuff. you may want to send it to Hodsons/Cabot too or the court may not like it. I tend to fax the letters to the court then post to Hodsons or email at the last possible time, that is clearly what they tend to do.

[joghuj]

Originally Posted by debt_mountain

I would send it now, you can never send too much of this sort of stuff. you may want to send it to Hodsons/Cabot too or the court may not like it. I tend to fax the letters to the court then post to Hodsons or email at the last possible time, that is clearly what they tend to do.

Should I send to Hodson's as well. As the Court claim came in from Cabot with no mention of them until I had begun correspondance with Cabot, I've continued to send only to Cabot. I've not had any real letters from Hodsons, only the HD005 template that Cabot use with their name on it.

When you say 'last possible time', what do you mean by that?

Cheers

[joghuj]

Originally Posted by tomterm8

Thank you for your help in this matter,

Yours truly,

XXX.

Do I really have to put 3 kisses to the court? Will one do!
Seriously, thanks for your help again Tomterm.

[tomterm8]

Personally, I would send the letter by special or recorded delivery as it contains so many enclosures. I would staple the letter together, and write your case number and case name on each page.

Replace all the XXX's with your name... no kissing the judge, you naughty boy

I would e-mail or fax the letter to whomever it says on the claim form as a contact address.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,
That's a good placeholder. I can see crystal clear what angle you are using. So it's advisable to let them waffle on about rights but not duties then?

[tomterm8]

Originally Posted by NitrousOxide

Hi,
That's a good placeholder. I can see crystal clear what angle you are using. So it's advisable to let them waffle on about rights but not duties then?

it messes up their claim, making it much harder for them to look like anything other than idjits, LOL. They can go on about rights and duties as much as they want: if they do this, they are fecked because you can force the creditor into the action. See point 5.

Basically, if they try this on its a fast-track to the house of lords and the european court, and they're probably going to lose a heck of a lot of money.