Cheers and thanks for your kindness.

Cabot/Restons were given permission to appeal the Order.

They were ordered to file and serve a bundle of docs which complies with CPR PD 52B 6.3 and 6.4.

And - the Respondent may provide written submissions/a skeleton argument for the permission hearing.

Now, I filed my defence of their claim on MCOL and nothing happened- stayed/lifted etc.

I opposed their application for summary judgement and a fast track process - their grounds for their application:

'the defendant has no real prospect of defending our claim."

The Appeal Hearing is due to be heard in a few days.

I have filed a skeleton argument with the court in advance of the hearing within the time limit.

My question is this:

if their appeal were to be successful am I right to assume that my defence will need to be much more detailed and robust beyond their not complying with the CCA request?

Below is a piece of advice I found somewhere along the way and which I have relied on:

"There is no requirement for the defendant to prepare and serve a defence before the hearing of a summary judgment application (assuming the application is made before a defence has been led),

however, it is usually helpful to prepare at least a draft defence to illustrate the arguments to be made on the defendant’s behalf at the application.

The defendant should have a draft defence ready in any event in case it loses the application for summary judgment and the claim continues."

However, Restons lost the application for summary judgement.

Sorry - another question.

Am I required to serve a copy of my skeleton argument on Restons in advance of the hearing? The Order says the Respondent may provide a skeleton argument/submissions for the permission hearing.

Although it specifies that Restons have to serve docs bundle on the Respondent it does not specify same for Respondent's skeleton argument.

AFAIK its solely for you ref

I just phoned the court. This is what I've been told:

"Although there is no requirement that you file and serve written submissions/skeleton argument in Restons' appeal, as you have filed such with the court, then it would be in your interest to serve it on Restons."

Thanks to to all the Caggers wherever you are for your assistance in my journey of liberation; in my fight to defeat the archons.

I really have entered a twilight zone here, a real dystopian nightmare.

To date this alleged debt has been 'owned' by six DCAs including Cabot.

Cabot's attack dogs Restons have sent me photocopies of computer screenshots which they allege show transactions on the Respondent's account, some of which are barely legible [WOOF], a transaction log from the applicant's system, together with a copy of a reconstituted credit agreement, a copy of a a reconstituted notice of assignment I have never seen before and a redacted deed of assignment. They have not provided a true copy of a default notice.

I would suggest all the DCA's were part of Cabot group so not been sold around.

Scan up to one multipage PDF their return.

Click upload

here

The first time I saw the Lloyds notice was when Restons sent me a copy.

This is the first letter I sent to Cabot was a CCA request

- I didn't specifically request a default notice.

However as the Judge repeatedly pointed out at the hearing I had said "any other documentation the Act requires you to provide."

skeleton claimant.pdf

Second upload seems to have disappeared.

Any comments on their skeleton argument anyone?

we don't need to see our templates

Ah yes sorry.

I've only just received the skeleton argument which kind of reminds me of the stink of a dead dog in the street. But how white are its teeth.

You know.

Did the loan term end before any collection activities took place?

No, the end of the loan term was 2014.

Collection activities began 2012/2013.

were those for arrears, or 'earlier payment' of sums not yet due/and or termination

Arrears accrued after Lloyds wouldn't accept reduced payments following a period of unemployment. I complained to the FOS who upheld my complaint and interest was repaid and frozen on the account - effectively in dispute. After the complaint was closed with FOS the letters from DCA s began.

ok.

i'm trying to establish whether a def notice was required or not.

if they went further than just asking for outstanding arrears prior to the end of the formal loan term, then a dn may have been required.

were you in some kind of 'plan' with them after the complaint

No plan.

It was all rather odd.

There were also some very odd phone calls from Lloyds that I complained about too.

Eventually, Lloyds wouldn't even talk to me on the phone.

I remember going into the branch to be told the account was in their recovery dept.

I just couldn't make any sense of it in the end.

Then the harassment started - phone calls / letters from various Debt Collectors making all kinds of threats to visit me at home.

I just sent the CCA request which they didn't respond to at all.

Now Restons are producing all kinds of stuff I haven't seen before like a reconstituted notice of assignment.

the judge at the pre-judgement hearing was quite adamant that she wanted to see a default notice and was the main reason she struck out the application and dismissed the claim.

It's an odyssey fraught with idiot traps.

And the appeal hearing can't come soon enough.

For research and educational purposes, the rep employed by Restons appearing for Cabot is a barrister based at 43templeRow.

Minimum wage.

the judge at the pre-judgement hearing was quite adamant that she wanted to see a default notice and was the main reason she struck out the application and dismissed the claim.

 

I.

and one main reason (the issue of a def notice) why the claimant says she was wrong.

thats why i was trying to see, imo, whether she was right or not. ie to see if a def notice was applicable or not. if it was applicable, then its issue is essential.

Do you think a default notice is applicable or not?

NB - the claimant has made application for permission to appeal.

previously posted by andyorch..

Default notices, litigation and section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act July 2010

.

For a creditor to enforce a credit agreement against the debtor,

he must serve the latter with a default notice,

this notice must be served in accordance with section 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

.

Generally, the prescribed form of a default notice according section 88 is as follows:

.

"The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify

.

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it

and the date before which that action is to be taken;

© if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach,

and the date before which it is to be paid."

.

Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

.

Should the debtor be sued for the outstanding amount,

it may be open to the debtor to raise an argument that the agreement is unenforceable

because it does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations.

.

Agreements executed before 6 April 2007 are subject to sections 127 (3) & (4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA').

Agreements entered into after that date are not by operation of the repeal under the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

.

The effect of sections 127 (3) & (4) truly displays the paternalistic nature of the CCA, in that where a breach of a prescribed term under regulation 6 and schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 is found, the agreement as a whole will be irredeemably unenforceable.

.

In other words, the lender cannot enforce the agreement or realise any surety under that agreement; the debt in effect is written off.

Regards

Andy

the key here is "may be open to the debtor to raise an agument etc"

In my case the agreement was entered into after 6 April 2007 so it is not subject to sections 127 (3) & (4) - [so may be enforceable?]

In any event, the default notice must be served in accordance with section 87?

So beware of one size fits all advice.

This is an area of consumer law which, in court on the day, and depending on the judge is open to interpretation, that's what argument is all about.

Like God, CAG helps those who help themselves or more correctly CAG itself helps those who dare.

All the best.

I take it the creditor is saying as the loan term has ended no dn is required?

I take it the creditor is saying as the loan term has ended no dn is required?

Yes, that’s their argument - however, imo it’s flawed because they are saying the account was assigned to their client 2 years before the end of the loan term.

And it has become clear to me during a very steep learning curve, that their claim is also fraudulent relying on what I believe to be forged letters and documents.

And in this case, and notwithstanding the issue of a default notice, I hope to able to prove it.

I'm defending this claim because I don't accept that Cabot is the creditor. Neither do I accept that Restons have proved that Cabot is the creditor.

id drop the not the creditor bit IMHO

by NOA they are.