Jump to content

Brent-London

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

165 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There is no "delete" function there that I can see, and it will not accept a blank post to replace the old one....
  2. That says "report post" - what does that do? Cant see how that would delete it, unless its against the terms of use...
  3. I have been trying to find on any of the HELP indexes about how to: 1. Delete threads I have started 2. Delete posts 3. Delete my account I have come to an agreement with some of the parties I have been in dispute with about this issue, and it is essential that I remove some posts from this forum Can someone please advise? I have sent 3 messages to the site hosts but have had no reply whatsoever.
  4. Yes - they certainly will not let it go without a hearing, so its pretty unavoidable I think.
  5. The rest of the note is acceptable but it should form part of your AQ, rather than a separate letter. I assume you have made reference to the "attached letter" in your AQ answers? if not you should. As for the strikeout - you are free to make that application at any time. There WILL however, be a hearing for the application where the law will be argued. So either way if Cabot push it you will have to go to hearing. Its nothing to worry about. But he main thing is they are being VERY cheeky requesting that its not dealt with on the small claims track. You need to point out to the Court in your AQ the provisions of the CPR, especially part 26.6 with deals with the Small Claims Track: Scope of each track 26.6 (1) The small claims track is the normal track for – ...... (3) ...... the small claims track is the normal track for any claim which has a value of not more than £5,000. and more importantly: 26.6 (5) The fast track is the normal track for the claims referred to in paragraph (4) only if the court considers that – (a) the trial is likely to last for no longer than one day; and (b) oral expert evidence at trial will be limited to – (i) one expert per party in relation to any expert field; and (ii) expert evidence in two expert fields. So point out the the Court that Cabot THEMSELVES admit that: 1. The value is less than £5000 AND 2. The trial would only last four hours So the FAST TRACK is NOT appropriate. They are only trying to get it on the fast track so they can claim costs! You have to stop that happening.
  6. If you are making a strikeout application you will need to use the correct form - an application notice, N244 - and pay the fee (£75) unless you are requesting that the court strike it out of their own volition, which is a different part of the CPR. A letter is not the most appropriate way to do this as it will not be actioned unless its in the right form, and certainly not without payment of the fee.
  7. What UTTER RUBBISH!!! I got back to what I said before - IGNORE THESE CLOWNS! You CANNOT be "sanctioned" by a court or anyone else for failing to respond to demands for payment of a debt that is legally unenforceable! They are just trying to scare you.
  8. Well - if the debt is unenforceable at law, its unenforceable. End of story. Its not for the debtor to tell the collector that. They should know! Its of no legal significance if you tell them or not. The judge would not even consider that in his decision. Its legally irrelevant. The only relevance a letter like that would have would be if you were bringing an harassment case - then, you would need proof that you had warned them their actions were causing you distress and they had no right to do it. Also, if you were bringing a case to have your data removed from a CRA. But Cabot ALWAYS refuse to do that and the law is unclear so its pointless. But my own experience with Cabot is they just dont listen to reason and the more you reply to them the more guff you get back. But if you really wanted to, a final letter saying that you consider the debt unenforceable, any further contact will be harassment and that if they think they have a case, to take you to court. Until then,no further correspondence will be entered into.
  9. If nothing has been provided after a s.78 request, then yes, they are in default. But remember, this can be remedied by provision of the data at any time, so its in no way complete defence. As for making anything "void" by changing the name - I'm sure Cabot will say it was you who did that, but that's for them to prove - IF it goes to court! Sometimes, details can be changed for legitimate reasons (eg: they just got your name wrong). I don't think that itself would invalidate the agreement if it can be shown that you accepted it and got a card etc. Changes to the date would be of no legal consequence I don't think - we all write a date wrong from time to time then alter it. It certainly would not be grounds to say the whole thing is void. Your killer argument is that there are no prescribed terms. Referring to them in a separate unsigned document is of NO LEGAL EFFECT despite what Cabot will try to tell you about it being "embodied". They are wrong and they know it, they just try to bamboozle people with no legal knowledge. Lack of the prescribed terms that is an absolute defence and they must know that! I go back to what I said before - simply IGNORE Cabot. Engaging with them and trying to get them to see reason is a pointless waste of your time and effort. Confucius said "Mind games only work with a man who wants to play". So, don't play! Unless and until they actually file court papers, IGNORE THEM and get on with your life
  10. All of this is completely irrelevant - there is NO COURT CASE on foot at the moment right? You have a perfect defence in terms of the lack of prescribed terms anyway. So just ignore them - engaging with Cabot in any way shape of form and trying to get them to see reason is a pointless waste of your time. I know from experience! Unless and until they ACTUALLY issue court proceedings (which is unlikely!) just file the letters and ignore them.
  11. My advice is to just IGNORE them. If they really think they have a case, they will take you to court. Engaging with the likes of Cabot by sending letters back and forth just stresses you out for no good reason. Ignore it. It may well go away if they know they have no case. If they are stupid enough to launch court action - which will COST them so they are trying to bully you in the meantime - you have a perfect defence (no prescribed terms) DO NOT speak to them on the phone FILE their letters but DO NOT reply. Its the best approach!
  12. You need to take this bit out unless you are applying for their case to be struck out? Im assuming you are just lodging a defence at this stage? This was part of my application to strike out which is why I worded it that way.
  13. Interesting - but I note that section 196(3) says it may be "left at the last known place of abode..." Here: (3)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine. So - does anyone know - can they argue that it was "left" if it was sent by first class post? Is there any case law that anyone knows about on this section?
  14. Good one - now its just a waiting game for a couple of weeks!
  15. Here's the strikeout application I used. Obviously, you need to adapt it for your own case, and of course you will be asking that the "Claimant's particulars of claim" be struck out - not the defendants (Cabot were defendants in my case as they made a counter claim against me). I suggest you lodge it AFTER your defence, so that the case is transferred to your local court for hearing. To lodge an application yo need form N244 - available from the court service website. There is a £75 fee which is fully recoverable from the other side when you win. CASE REF: XXXXXXX IN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT BETWEEN BRENT LONDON AND CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED ______________________________ APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-CLAIM ______________________________ 1.This application is made in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 3.4 on the basis that the defendants counter claim has no realistic prospect of success (Rule 3.4) and in accordance with Practice Direction 3, part 1.7 which states that: A party may believe he can show without a trial that an opponent’s case has no real prospect of success on the facts, or that the case is bound to succeed or fail, as the case may be, because of a point of law (including the construction of a document). In such a case the party concerned may make an application under rule 3.4 or Part 24 (or both) as he thinks appropriate. 2.In this case, the claimant maintains that because of the construction of a document produced by the defendant and upon which their case relies, namely, a Consumer Credit Agreement purportedly signed by the claimant, and exhibited as “WW3” in their counter-claim, their case must fail at law and it is appropriate that their case be struck out without a trial. 3.The defendant’s document, as a basis for enforcement of a debt under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the Act”), is not valid at law for the following reasons: (a)The Consumer Credit Agreement provided by the defendant and exhibited as “WW3” is legally unenforceable as it does not contain the required information under Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) (“the regulations”) which are required under sections 61(1)(a) and 127(3) as it then was, of the Act, which apply to agreements executed prior to 6th April 2007. Specifically lacking is: ·information as to the amount of credit (para. 3 of the regulations) ·information as to the interest rate (para. 4 of the regulations) ·information as to the repayment terms (para. 5 of the regulations) (b)Further, section 61(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Schedule 6 of the 1983 regulations and the case law relied upon (see (f) below) make it clear that the required information must be included in the same document and not merely referred to in another document. Any reference to the “Terms and Conditions” attached in a separate document is of no legal effect for the purposes of enforceability as they are not signed by the debtor. ©The agreement is “improperly executed” in accordance with section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act, 1974 and it does not contain “all the prescribed terms of the agreement” in a document “signed by the debtor” in accordance with sections 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of Act. (d)Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was abolished by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, however Schedule 3, Part 11© of the 2006 Act states that section 127(3) of the 1974 Act remains applicable to agreements entered into prior to the commencement of the 2006 Act. The commencement date of the 2006 Act was 6th April, 2007. (e)The defendant has admitted that the agreement in question was entered into on XXXX (insert date). Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 therefore applies to the agreement in question. (f)The claimant will rely on the House of Lords case of Wilson & Ors v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (10 July 2003) in applying this interpretation of the law and regulations in relation to unenforceable consumer credit agreements and this agreement. 4.The court is therefore barred from issuing an enforcement order under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in accordance with sections 65(1) and 127(3) as it then was, and the defendant’s claim must fail. I believe the facts stated herein are true.
×
×
  • Create New...