Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ScabHunter last won the day on November 17 2009

ScabHunter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,359 Excellent

1 Follower

About ScabHunter

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've been asked through PM to take a look at this thread and give whatever advice I can. Really, this has gone beyond the stage where well-meaning amateurs of limited knowledge, myself included, can help to any meaningful degree. Some of the most knowledgeable posters on the entire site have posted to this thread, and the advice they have given is consistent. I notice a poster above me has invited you to PM him if you need a recommendation. I would take him up on that offer. Focus ALL of your attention on the hearing in May, and get the best professional help you possibly can.
  2. The CPR 31.14 letter you have printed here requests sight of the agreement but not the notice of assignment. You can include that as well as it is mentioned in the statement of case. SH
  3. Hi, I've been asked to look in on this one because it involves Cabot. So far, the advice which has been given is exactly right, but make sure you word the CPR 31.14 letter correctly. Cabot POCs tend to be incredibly vague, and CPR 31.14 only allows you to request sight of a document mentioned in the statement of case. Try if you can to formulate your own defence, as you are the one who will have to argue its points in court. Read threads and try to find the answers yourself because it will put you in a better position, but if you have any questions please ask away. I will get email n
  4. Before anyone asks "Why were you stupid enough to sign up with these cretins in the first place?", the answer is simple. I had no choice if I was to stay in business. British Telecon had engaged in some rather sharp practices (which I won't go into here), and the line was cut out of spite. After the case went to Otelo, I got compensation. Now, I am in the usual situation for a Virgin Bleedia victim. The telephone line is not working, and has not been for weeks. This is not a serious problem as I hardly ever use the thing but that is not the point. The point is that they should come and de
  5. It is simply routine. The court needs to allocate the case to a track, so it sends out a questionnaire to both parties. The receipt of the AQ is automatic. There will only be a sign that Carter intends to continue the case if and when he submits his AQ and pays the fee (the claimant has to pay a fee to continue, you, as the defendant, don't). SH
  6. Yes, DEFINITELY include Carter's non-compliance. Have a read of this thread by pt2537 which covers this situation - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html and then this one, which is a live case featuring Carter where he bottled out at the AQ stage. Your AQ will not be identical, but it will be similar, and this thread will show you how to complete it. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/170673-bryan-carter-ccj-can.html Any questions, just shout. SH
  7. In the post yesterday morning were two envelopes from Cabot Financial. The first one contained a letter from a certain Mr. Maynard, indignantly explaining why Cabot Financial were NOT obliged to send me a copy of their complaints procedure. The other envelope contained a copy of their complaints procedure. I guess its just "business" as usual. SH
  8. Right, what we have here seems simple enough, provided this is an “agreement” which was signed before 6th April 2007. We have an application form purporting to be an agreement, which contains none of the prescribed terms. That in itself is a complete defence in law. CCA 1974 Section 61 61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behal
  9. Chez63, Hi and welcome to the CAG. You will get the help you need on this forum, but please start your own thread as this one needs to be kept clear for the needs of the original poster, who is the subject of court action. SH
  10. Sorry, yes, just in case there is any confusion - I would add the paragraph I have numbered as 5 before the one numbered 5 in the original defence, and definitely not instead of it. Totally agree. SH
  11. I was all set to help out with this defence when I got home today, but I see that the excellent vjohn82 has already supplied what will be a satisfactory and complete defence in itself. I will just make a couple of suggestions, which you are free to take or leave as you see fit. Firstly, I would split the paragraph containing the reference to CPR 31.14 and CPR 18, because non-compliance with each has different potential consequences. CPR 18, the wider-reaching rule, is at the discretion of the court, whereas CPR 31.14 is defined as an absolute right under the CPR (see CPR 31.15).
  12. Have you got anything drafted yet, or are we starting from scratch? SH
  13. Even better - send them some second hand ones. SH
  14. That must be the first step. It gives you 33 days from the date on the form. Give yourself as much time as possible because this is not going to be the simplest of defences to compile. You will need to send off at least one request for information under the Civil Procedure Rules. Let me have a think about exactly what you need to send, and come back tomorrow. The one thing which would be helpful is if you could type out (or scan in) the exact Particulars of Claim. Leave out any amounts as they can be used to identify you. All we need to know is a very rough range, to see which
  15. First obvious question - Have you acknowledged service yet? SH
  • Create New...