Jump to content

consumeredge

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by consumeredge

  1. Howard Cohen & Co are no fools, they monitor this forum. Unfortunately Dave you have positively identified your partner to Santander Cards UK Limited and Howard Cohen & Co by failing to omit the Account Number on the Claim Form, the exhibited Default Notice gives the exact total of arrears at the time of its issue, 1st March 2012 Whilst you’ve noted down the Default Notice as being received on the 9th March 2012, whereas the sentence "if the action required by this notice is taken before the date shown" can confuse somewhat, the notice does include the sentence "You must pay the arrears within 14 days of receipt of this notice" A Notice of Termination was sent last year dated 15th April 2011 whereby Santander Cards UK Limited clearly state that in accordance with condition 21.1 of the Credit Card Agreement, as from the 24th June 2011 your partner will only be able to make payments into the account. As a consequence your partner will be unable to make any further purchases or other new transactions and are advised to cut the credit card in 2. After the 24th June 2011once the outstanding balance is fully repaid Santander Cards will then close the account. Hopefully your partner did not use the card for any purchases or transactions from the 15th April 2011 till 24th June and took their advice by cutting the card up. It would be reasonable to assume you neither made any contact with Santander or made any payments to them since 15th April 2011 IMO the evidence Santander Cards UK Limited/Howard Cohen & Co will submit to the court (Certificate of Incorporation, Credit Card Agreement, Statements of Account, Termination Notice and Default Notice) will more than likely persuade the court they can rule on probabilities, that is why I suggested seek out the possibility of a consent order. Seems daft to me to post up evidence against yourself then believe you can escape on a technicality, as the problem with section 78 cases is that while the debt is only unenforceable while the error persists (IE Credit Card Agreement), When they find the right information and supply it to the court and defendant, they can proceed to collect their debt as before.
  2. Hi Dave, The question you first asked when starting this thread was "can I send a CCA request to Santander and a SAR request at the same time? Reason being, would like the CCA here quickly and not have to wait 40 days?" You might want to have a look at your previous thread, Help with Triton, please. Post 9 where DebT answered on the 30th March 2010 12:38 Yes, always subject access the original creditor, only consider a SAR’s with a DCA if they’ve been able to prove that the debt in title has been legally assigned to them. You posted on the 11th May that you’d SAR’d Santander Cards UK whereby Howard Cohen & Co replied: So, therefore to make it clear, please take note of the following: The Claimant will provide you with a reply to your CPR 31.14 request as soon as possible; The Claimant will then allow you 28 days to file a reply to the County Court Claim Form. We trust that this clarifies the matter. IMO, that’s pretty self explanatory and would defeat any "Unless Order" you might consider applying for. Howard Cohen & Co will merely send a copy of their letter to you to the court; the court will apply a stay and refuse your application for costs. As to the comment (largely irrelevant, but this has been assigned in the past) to whom? Because if true, you would have received a Notice of Assignment from the Assignor, or the Assignee. There’s no mention of this in your thread other than the account was first passed to Viking Collections? Who we all know are the Debt Collectors based in Leeds that Santander Cards UK first use to collect bad debts. If you want to end this and importantly do agree you owe monies to Santander Cards UK Limited, I would suggest you propose to Howard Cohen you would be willing to consider a Consent Order. Potential defences?….. 1 The lack of agreement under 31.14 which might be enough to get this kicked out or withdrawn 2 As he says he sent and has had no reply Your defence must be based on points of law, I struggle to think what defence you will be able to offer when the documents you have requested are in your possesion and you have 28 days to submit a full defence. Apologies if this post appears downbeat but you must be made fully aware of the consequenses ahead. Kind regards C
  3. You need to read the POC again, Howard Cohen & Co are acting on behalf of Santander Cards UK Limited, therefore there is no "Deed of Assignment", Santander Cards Limited have not assigned the account to Howard Cohen & Co, Santander Cards UK Limited will provide copies of Statements of Account and you already have a copy of the Default Notice, what you actually need is copies of Santander Cards UK Limited "Notices of Arrears" primarily to validate the Default Notice is correct, IMO your comment " never sent a CCa request as I learned from mine just to ignore these..!" doesn't sit well with me, what Defence do you have?
  4. Hi sabr44 I would write to Howard Cohen & Co as follows: Dear Sir or Madam Reference your letter dated 10th May 2012 the contents of which are noted. I remind you of the Judges comment at the previous hearing whereby your representative on the day was advised by said judge that Howard Cohen & Co instruct a hand writing expert. The Right Honourable Judge did not state, or suggest, the cost be born by the Defendant. So as to validate your claim this service will cost £3,000 of which you allege I am liable to, kindly forward the name of the Expert Witness that you intend to instruct together with their company address details. Obviously as you will agree, I can then make arrangements to visit the Expert Witness with the nesassary documentation carrying my signature, this will enable myself to clear this matter expediently and beyond reasonable doubt, saving the court any further wasted time and costs. Should you fail to provide the above information then an explanation will be required how you arrived at the figure of £3000 together with reasons as to your refusal to co-operate with the honourable judge’s directions, that in reality would then serve to offer the answer to your question number 5. I look forward to your reply within 7 days of receipt of this letter. Yours Faithfully
  5. Cabot Financial’s POC……..Notice of Assignment having been given to the Defendant in writing. Having been issued the summons Simongee wrote to Morgans last September asking to see sight of the Deed of Assignment, which is referred to within the plaintiffs Particulars of Claim, Simons defence further asks the court under their own motion the Claimant be ordered to file and serve true copies of the Deed of Assignment Morgans knew exactly what Simongee meant but have steadfastly refused to show sight of the said document offering only a redacted template copy Now then, from the findings of Vann Lynn Developments and subsequent appeals that Morgans have sent Simongee and upon which they intend to rely "It is sufficient if it brings to the notice of the debtor with reasonable certainty the fact that the deed does assign the debt due from the debtor so as to bind the debt in his hands and prevent him from paying the debt due to the original creditor" "After receiving the notice the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him good discharge." Simon has never been afforded the opportunity by Morgans to view the original Deed of Assignment, to which he is entitled to to be satisfied with reasonable certainty that the assignment was and is valid.
  6. This is my opinion/understanding having viewed the latest Morgan correspondence, as is often the case, you learn more from what’s not said, as opposed to what is said…… In May 1969 a contract was entered into between Peliaus Construction Co Limited and Jason Construction Co limited to build a house at Kingston Hall for the sum of £15,000. In order to be able to purchase materials and employ labour Mr Apponi (Jason Construction Co limited) required an overdraft facility from the National Provincial Bank. Whether the National Provincial Bank was Mr Apponi’s normal business current account bank, or a current business account opened upon the recommendation of Mr Vandervall is unclear. Upon the personal request of Mr Colin Vandervall (Van Lynn Developments Limited), Jason Construction Co Limited were able to overdraw quite considerable, with the understanding pledged by Mr Vandervall that progress payments made (I would assume) from Pelias Construction Co Limited to the Jason Construction Co Limited bank account held with the National Provincial Bank so as to reduce overdraft borrowings. In any event, Mr Vandervall used his influence and effectively became the guarantor. At some point a dispute arose between Mr Apponi (Jason Construction Co Limited) and Mr Vandervall, resulting in that Mr Apponi indicated to Mr Vandervall no more progress payments would be made to the National Provincial Bank. Mr Vandervall took it upon himself as a responsible person to visit the National Provincial Bank. The National Provincial Bank saw both Mr Vandervall and Mr Apponi, again, I would assume separately, as when Mr Apponi went to the bank, the Bank Manager told Mr Apponi he ought to continue making the progress payments to the National Provincial Bank as the overdraft was accruing (by this I would think incurring interest on the amount overdrawn). Mr Apponi refused. The National Provincial Bank Manager said he would have to call the overdraft in. No dates are offered when these meetings took place between the National Provincial Bank, Mr Vandervall or Mr Apponi, nor do we know the atmosphere of the conversation. Interesting though, the 15th June 1969 was a Saturday? However: Through a letter dated 15th June 1969 National Provincial Bank wrote to Mr Apponi withdrawing the overdraft agreement and required the payment of £5,385. 18s 2d, I would assume the letter required immediate settlement, or at most 5 working days because a second letter dated the 21st June 1969 the National Provincial Bank again wrote to Mr Apponi stating that unless they received payment they intended to seek legal remedy. No exact details are given as to when Mr Vandervall went to the National Provincial Bank to pay the outstanding balance. I would debate that at this point though whilst a dispute arose between Mr Vandervall and Mr Apponi, the National Provincial Bank agreed to the overdraft facility initially based from the projected profit of the sale of the completed house and the bank’s gain would be from a profit through the interest generated from the overdraft, In my view Mr Vandervall’s own personal guarantee to pay any outstanding amount with interest merely served as a win win for the bank. Importantly though after a face to face meeting with Mr Apponi, whereby Mr Apponi refused to recommence payments to the bank, the National Provincial Bank served notice upon Mr Apponi the overdraft agreement had been terminated and the National Provincial Bank required immediate payment, failure to do so, then legal action would be taken. In my opinion, to preserve his good standing with the bank, Mr Vandervall paid the full outstanding balance owing including interest accrued on the account, £5,385. 18s 2d, on the condition he was assigned the outstanding total amount. Whatever confusion surrounding the date of Assignment, the Deed of Assignment (Bill of Sale) is crystal clear, the assignee Van Lynn Developments paid the full amount outstanding for the title and all rights, not a percentage. The Deed of Assignment is also clear detailing the National Provincial Bank and Mr Vandervall aka Van Lynn Developments, so much so the plaintiff (Mr Vandervall aka Van Lynn Developments) had no qualms exhibiting the full unedited document to Mr Apponi and the court. Essentially when Morgan’s quote Van Lynn Developments then I believe the case should be directly compared against it. Did the Debtor inform the Original Creditor of a problem with making his contracted payments? Did the Original Creditor then have any contact with the Debtor when the dispute first arose? Did the Original Creditor then serve notice upon the Debtor that the account had been terminated? Did the original Creditor then serve notice upon the Debtor that legal action would be commenced? Whilst the court ruled Mr Apponi was entitled to view the original Deed of Assignment. Did the Assignee exhibit to the Debtor and the court the full unedited Deed of Assignment? If so did the Assignee pay the Original Creditor the full amount outstanding on the account?    
  7. I would suggest you first write and ask for a draft of the proposed Tomlin Order for your consideration, it is not an admission or a commitment to anything, just examing the terms and conditions. Head your letter "Without Prejudice"
  8. Hi jpmad4it This is only my opinion, If you proceed with this be warned the defendant could submit a counter claim, if they instruct a solicitor he may well want to see evidence your 1st mechanic was suitably qualified to tackle the task, how much did you pay him and by what method? if you paid this mechanic by cash without a reciept you are breaking the law, which could place him in an awkward situation, any award would be subject to a consideration for the damage caused travelling 100 miles, £140 in petrol? have the you receipts? As to whether they should have informed you if they found nothing wrong, the problem I understood was you were unable to select 2nd gear, when a gearbox is stripped it is possible to select gears masking the cause of the problem, they may have taken the precaution to replace parts which are known to cause this, The cost of the "original" repair was £350, little labour I suspect as they were handed the gearbox, the second garage charged £400 for parts and £700 for labour, it would be reasonable to assume had you taken the vehicle to the second garage first, the labour cost would not be much different. Whilst I agree it makes you mad to think they bodged the job, should you lose you could be faced with further costs. Whilst my opinions might not be welcomed it is only right you be warned of the possible conseqences. Kind Regards Clive
  9. IMO the acid test is that when a person is subject to a Debt Management Programme the Creditor sends "Notice of Assignment" to the Debtor and the Assignee sends a letter of purchase to the debtor to inform them to inform their DMC where to send payments to, if there was no requirement the Original Creditor wouldn't bother, but would a DMC accept the word of the alleged Assignee on its own? its important I believe to remember this law was written and passed by Parliment 87 years ago, back then the Assignment would have been written in all probability by a quill, my understanding of "under the hand" 87 years ago meant handwritten, today we live in an electronic world but the principle remains, a letter from the Original Creditor to the Debtor informing them the debt has been sold, stating how much is owed and on what date.
  10. Hi Simon Just to refresh this is the witness statement you submitted…….. It is averred no Notice of Assignment compliant with S136 Law of Property Act 1925 to which the Claimant cites, misleading the court and thus forming the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has ever been lawfully served upon the Defendant by the Assignor, Capitol One. I bring to the courts attention the Claimant is disrespectful towards the court attempting to circumnavigate the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and S136 Law of Property Act 1925 offering first a template as evidence of a Notice of Assignment alleged to have been sent to the Defendant on the 6th May 2011, then stating exhibit "IL5" " to be a copy of the Claimant’s letter before action dated 16th August 2011 which makes a demand for payment and suffices to give Notice of Assignment" I bring to the courts attention the exact and relevant wording of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 136. Legal assignments of things in action. — Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice— I bring to the courts attention the Claimant is not the Assignor. I respectfully ask the court uphold the Law to which the Claimant quotes, that being, for any Notice of Assignment to be effectual in law and absolute served under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Notice of Assignment must be written under the hand of the Assignor. Until such time the Defendant receives express Notice of Assignment written under the hand of the Assignor the Claimant’s claim be struck out upon the grounds the Claimant has no standing in the court. I would write to Morgans as follows. Dear Sir or Madam To further the overriding objective so that there can be no misunderstanding where the Defence stands, and to save wasted time, it is abundantly clear both yourselves and your client are attempting to circumnavigate the Consumer Credit Act 1974 deliberately misinterpreting the Law by stating a Notice of Assignment was served pursuant to Section 136 Law of Property Act 1925 on or around the 6th May 2011by the Claimant, therefore please read the following which is in fact a lawful Notice of Assignment sent as per the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925 upon which your Client relies upon:   Barclaycard official headed notepaper. 19 October 2011 Account Number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear Mr X Some time ago you contacted us to advise that you were unable to make the minimum payment on your Barclaycard each month. As a responsible lender, we agreed to accept reduced payments towards your account. We have recently reviewed accounts that are on reduced payment arrangements and we have subsequently agreed to sell the debt you owed to us to a company called Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd in accordance with the Terms & Conditions of your account. We have included the relevant section of the Terms & Conditions with this letter for your information. This letter is notice of the agreed sale of the debt. This means we will close your account with Barclaycard and you will receive contact within 21 working days from Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. The balance outstanding on your Barclaycard account on 19 October 2011 was £315.30 Cabot Financial will honour any repayment arrangement you had with us until it is due for review in (a minimum) of six months time. At this stage Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd will contact you (or any 3rd party representative you have subsequently advised them is dealing) to review your circumstances and agree an affordable repayment amount. Payments: If payments are currently made by Credit/Debit Card, then any scheduled payments will be cancelled upon sale. Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd will provide you with alternative payment instructions in due course. If you pay by standing order then Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd will confirm the new payee details, enabling you to change the payment instruction currently held by your bank/Building Society. Further information is set out below but if you have any query or concerns relating to the transfer of your account that are not covered then please contact us on 0844 556 0066. Yours sincerely Alexandra Regan. Barclaycard For and on behalf of Barclays Bank PLC TERMS & CONDITIONS 14. General 14.2 We may transfer to any other person any or all of our rights under this agreement at any time and our duties (including without limitation, our duty to lend to you). We may do this without telling you. Your rights under this agreement and your legal rights (including under the consumer credit act 1974) will not be affected. Copies of both Barclaycard’s Notice of Assignment and Cabot’s "Welcome" letter can be provided. As your client Cabot Financial (UK) knew exactly what was being asked of them to provide proof Notice of Assignment was sent to the Debtor from Capitol One via my letter dated 3rd October 2011 and again through the Defence submitted on the 12th October 2011, perhaps you would be good enough to offer an explanation as to why you have continually ignored to discus or provide this crucial evidence. I look forward to your reply Yours Faithfully    
  11. So as to clarify yet again the Law of Property Act 1925, the following concerns a family member who has been with Payplan for the last 5 years, Barclaycard were listed as a creditor from the beginning and have been recieving £1.75 from the start of the repayment programme So........... Barclaycard official headed notepaper. 19 October 2011 Account Number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear Mr X Some time ago you contacted us to advise that you were unable to make the minimum payment on your Barclaycard each month. As a responcible lender, we agreed to accept reduced payments towards your account. We have recently reviewed accounts that are on reduced payment arrangements and we have subsequently agreed to sell the debt you owed to us to a company called Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of your account. We have included the relevant section of the Terms and Conditions with this letter for your information. This letter is notice of the agreed sale of the debt. This means we will close your account with Barckaycard and you will recieve contact within 21 working days from Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. The balance outstanding on your Barclaycard account on 19 October 2011 was £315.30 Cabot Finacial will honour any repayment arrangement you had with us until it is due for review in (a minimum) of six months time. At this stage Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd will contact you (or any 3rd party representative you have subsequently advised them is dealing) to review your circumstances and agree an affordable repayment amount. Payments: If payments are currently made by Credit/Debit Card, then any scheduled payments will be cancelled upon sale. Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd will provide you with alternative payment instructions in due course. If you pay by standing order then Cabot Finacial (UK) Ltd will confirm the new payee details, enabling you to change the payment instruction currently held by your bank/Building Society. Further information is set out below but if you have any query or concerns relating to the transfer of your account that are not covered then please contact us on 0844 556 0066. Yours sincerely Alexandra Regan. Barclaycard For and on behalf of Barclays Bank PLC TERMS & CONDITIONS 14. General 14.2 We may transfer to any other person any or all of our rights under this agreement at any time and our duties (including without limitation, our duty to lend to you). We may do thiswithout telling you. Your rights ubder this agreement and your legal rights (including under the consumer credit act 1974) will not be affected. Cabot Finacial sent a "Welcome Letter" 3 weeks later. Now then, whilst Barclaycard quote/state they may transfer all or any of their rights to any other person without telling you, they send a Notice of Assignment to you when they "Sell" the debt, and that is a big big difference.
  12. Hi Simon Capitol One's "Customer Insight" system could prove useful, while it alledgedly shows a default notice as entered on 18/12/2009 there should also be a reference as to when the account was "sold", strange they make no reference to that bearing in mind the requirements of the law of Property Act which they rely upon. leave it with me, I'll come back to you during the week. Kind regards Clive
  13. RE: Post 9 The claim is for my car's gearbox - it needed to be refurbished, as selecting 2nd gear was quite difficult. (Refurbished or Repaired? as the word "Refurbished" suggests the gearbox was completely overhauled and would thus carry a manufacturer parts and labour guarantee. In todays market £350 indicates merely a replacement of the 2nd gear cog/synchro or selector lay shafts when the second company charged £1300 to repair the alleged damage caused by the original repair) A mechanic close to me tested the car, and we agreed for him to take the gearbox out. Once the gearbox was out, it was taken elsewhere to be refurbished. Once the company said they had completed the refurbishment, the gearbox was collected and put back in by the mechanic local to me. As soon as I set off to drive home the car was making a horrid noise, which wasn't there before the gearbox was taken out. (Why didn’t the mechanic who took the gearbox out and then refitted it for you, road test the vehicle, report this noise before you drove the vehicle away and warn you continued driving could cause further irreparable damage?) After several inspections it was decided that the noise was within the gearbox. We took the car back to the company that carried out the gearbox refurbishment and they said that it was a wheel bearing that was causing the noise. So I had the wheel bearing changed, and the noise was still there afterwards. (Which side of the vehicle was the wheel bearing that was causing the noise offside or nearside? Did you retain the wheel bearing, or bearings, for evidence?) I went back again, and they still denied that they could hear any noise. Funnily enough they were the only people that couldn't hear this noise. Any mechanic worth his salt having diagnosed the noise was coming from the gearbox when told it was infact the wheel bearing that was causing the noise would argue NO it is the gearbox, and be able to offer a technical explanation as to why. I took the car to another mechanic for a third opinion, (Why? Did you not trust your first mechanic?) and they were adamant that it was the gearbox causing the noise. I took a video that day of the horrendous noise being emitted. How many weeks and miles did the vehicle travel in total from first having the gearbox refitted by your mechanic to having the gearbox repaired by the second company? This will prove crucial as in all probability you caused further considerable damage to the gearbox simply by driving the vehicle about then seeking a third opinion to confirm if the gearbox was at fault! I sent the video to the company that carried out the original work, and they asked me to go down to see them for another road test. When I got there they said that the best thing to do was to give me my money back (£350), or leave the car and let them look at it - but I wouldn't get any money back if I did this. (The company offered you a full refund or to leave the vehicle there for them to investigate. You accepted the full refund because you didn’t trust them?) I didn't want to leave the car with them as I didn't trust them any more and took my money back. If I left the car with them they could have just put it to one side and then told me nothing was found without even inspecting it! And they would have kept the money. Anyway, in the following weeks the damage that they had caused within the gearbox cost me a total of £1300 to fix elsewhere. (How is this total made up of? Specify Parts and Labour costs) I obtained a report of what was found when the gearbox was opened by another company, and I have photographic evidence. What you should have done is ask the second company who repaired the gearbox to first open and inspect it, before any work is undertaken to then provide an estimate for the cost of repair with a written report as to what caused the gearbox to be damaged, you should have then provided the first company with the estimate and report to negotiate if they accepted liability, were willing to pay the bill, or on what grounds would they dispute/refuse. Did you notify the first company you intended to take legal action and gain any reply? Unless the original company is a Mickey Mouse back street affair they will have a poor workmanship insurance cover; they will be instructed to handle any claim. What the court will consider is why, when the gearbox was first refitted and the noise was apparent, why the gearbox was not removed and immediately returned to the original repairer in the same manner as it was first given, having been offered a full refund which you accepted it would appear you then gave this second company the complete vehicle, not just the gearbox, and now expect the original company to foot the bill? In my opinion the Defendant has a defence, they offered you to either leave the vehicle for them to investigate, bearing in mind if the gearbox had to be removed and repaired they would have done so free of charge, or offered you a full refund. You accepted the refund.
  14. I would suggest a new thread be started titled Cabot Witness Statements, then explain in the first post what is trying to be acheived, current defendants are needed who have been issued with a summons by Cabot through the NCCBC pre August 2011 in order to firstly build a profile of Cabot's practices towards the defendant when a defence is submitted and the claim is subsequently moved to be heard in the defendants local court, Cabot state all correspondance and telephone calls up to litigation, then blank out all entries from the date the summons is issued, this is information the court is unaware of masking Cabot and Morgans refusal to disclose documents until standard disclosure or ordered by the court to do so. Cabot paint an picture to the court they have made numerous telephone call, then sent letters with no reply. This goes against the overiding objective to be transparent, clearly identify the issues and seek settlement using the correct protocals without the need of litigation Initially what is needed are copies of Cabot's witness statements together with the name of the court and importantly the name of the litigation assistant who signed it, personal details can be omitted
  15. If 3 upcoming cases could be found where the defendants are willing to work together, the evidence to lay before the court would then be that Cabot use a systamatic approach to to circumnavigate Civil procedure, the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre rules on disclosure and the defndants Local Courts, Simogee might be willing to be party to this as defendants will have to name other cases for the court to provide case law upon which they can rule from.
  16. Hi heathrow Simons's hearing is set for early May. Write to Cabots and request again the documents as per CPR 31.14, also ask for a updated and complete copy of Cabot Europe's case history to show all telephone calls and correspondance between Cabot Europe and the Defendant. The reason I say that is because Cabot only submit a copy (printout) of all telephone calls and correspondance between Cabot Europe and the Defendant up to the point of issuing the summons, as with Simon's case there is no record of the letters sent to Cabots from Simon or their replies (Blanked out), this paints a picture the Defendant never responded to calls or letters, when in fact many people have never heard of the Claimant until the summons lands on the doorstep. As you have previously sent recorded delivery you can verify what was received and note if they responded. Could be useful to prove to the court you made repeated efforts to gain information yet the Claimant suppressed this information by blanking out entries Could you post up the printout of all telephone calls and correspondance between Cabot Europe and the Defendant
  17. Sounds like Studio accepted a concessionary repayment agreement with you at £5 per month, just continue to pay the SO, Lewis Debt Recovery have no grounds to state the amount is not acceptable or that you have to fill in an Income and Expenditure form, whilst Lewis Debt Recovery may threaten all sorts they cannot do anything while you continue to pay Studio. Keep hold of all correspondance with the envalopes.
  18. Hi Simon When all courts act to uphold Civil Procedure rules and enforce the law they will see a reduction in claims, wasted court time and costs, the judicary moan they are overloaded yet they are their own worst enemies having allowed the culture of DCA's to issue a claim as a first line of threat, instead of a last line of resort
  19. Entry Date Time Action 11 06/05/2011 08:46 New Business (HEL 009) sent to Account Holder address 17 12/05/2011 17:58 Take note Phone Number(s) no answer 18 14/05/2011 09:30 Outgoing call: Other contact type - Phone Other no deal tt m adv wrong 21 17/05/2011 09:00 Outgoing call: Other contact type - Phone Other no deal tt m adv wrong xxxxxxxxx removed 22 18/05/2011 14:59 Outgoing call: Other contact type - Phone Other no deal tt m said cust not home 23 18/05/2011 17:00 Outgoing call: Occupier of Property - Phone Other no deal tt m wrng 24 18/05/2011 17:01 Document NC001 sent to account holder address 25 19/05/2011 09:06 Take note Phone Number(s) no answer 27 30/05/2011 22:10 Document NBT-016 sent to account holder address 34 22/06/2011 02:40 Document submitted PLO10 Pre litigation version of HD002 sent to account holders address 41 21/07/2011 23:37 Document submitted HD005 solicitors letter sent to account holders address 46 16/08/2011 22:03 Document submitted Lit 035 letter before legal action sent to account holders address 56 01/09/2011 14:00 CCJ amount to 999 When you decipher Cabot’s event activity log for the account it amounts to a welcome letter (New Business) sent to you dated 06/05/2011. 3 phone calls to the wrong number, then 2 calls the first of which the occupier said you were not at home, Cabot then called at 5pm and got no joy for whatever reason, one more call was made the Following day at 09:06 (no answer) which would indicate to anyone with an ounce of common sense the occupiers of the property are employed or out elswhere during daytime. What does smack you in the face is that no Notice of Assignment from either Capitol One or Cabot was ever sent, hence why Cabot are trying to mislead the court offering a reacted template of nothing, then stating the letter before action sent dated 16/08/2011 is suffice to cover as a Notice of Assignment. Oh no it’s not! If Cabot had sent a Notice of Assignment it would be clearly noted on the events log prior to the 16/05/2011
  20. Hi Simon I would keep the statement as it is, when you read Cabot’s Witness Statement it is only paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 that are only relevant to your case, the rest is Cabot waffle. Cabot have now made a specific statement that the Assignment was lawfully completed as per S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 on the 29th March 2011. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 was amended to include Section 82 and enacted August 2011, it is only after this date "Assignee’s" are entitled to send a Notice of Assignment on behalf of the Assignor. Its important to remember the new section 82 was inserted to prevent DCA’s from circumnavigating the Consumer Credit Act. Cabot were given the opportunity to state S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 when they replied to your letter dated 26th September yet the reply you received was: "You will note that the Claimant has not referred to "The Agreement", "The assignment", "The default notice" and "The termination notice" within any of the above mentioned documents." Then "We shall endeavour to provide you with copies of any of the documents referred to above which are pertinent to the issues in the case and which are within our power, possession, custody or control at the Standard Disclosure stage in proceedings." Again, the Defence you submitted specifically asked questions under Section 82 of the Consumer Credit Act, and if so, you required proof the legal requirements before Cabot took action had been met. Both Cabot and Morgans ignored this. At the hearing you will have the opportunity to verbally address the court, state your case and question the Claimant, the trick is to have a script, learn it and be ready.     If the court rules in your favour the Claimant will have to seek and provide proof a Notice of Assignment was sent to you under the written hand the Original Creditor (in today’s world that means a letter from Capitol One on headed notepaper, Dated, titled Notice Of Assignment, the contents would be the date the account was sold with the amount outstanding as of that date, who to contact and electronically signed) Cabot may seek that you agree to a consent/tomlin order instead, but they have to offer this to you, not you to them.
  21. Hi Simon, The Witness Statement you have copied is for a Summary Judgement. Reading through Cabots Witness Statement imo you have a case for defence based on Law, if the court agrees they have no option other than to strike out the claim, however, be warned Cabot could come back again and with a Charging Order looming if they are succesful it might be worth considering a consent/tomlin order. This is what I would submit as a Witness Statement, admittidly its short, but its direct and to the point. I Simon XXXX of Address will state It is averred no Notice of Assignment compliant with S136 Law of Property Act 1925 to which the Claimant cites, misleading the court and thus forming the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has ever been lawfully served upon the Defendant by the Assignor, Capitol One. I bring to the courts attention the Claimant is disrespectful towards the court attempting to circumnavigate the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and S136 Law of Property Act 1925 offering first a template as evidence of a Notice of Assignment alleged to have been sent to the Defendant on the 6th May 2011, then stating exhibit "IL5" " to be a copy of the Claimant’s Letter before Action dated 16th August 2011 which makes a demand for payment and suffices to give Notice of Assignment" I bring to the courts attention the exact and relevant wording of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 136. Legal assignments of things in action. — Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice— I bring to the courts attention the Claimant is not the Assignor. I respectfully ask the court uphold the Law to which the Claimant quotes, that being, for any Notice of Assignment to be effectual in law and absolute served under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Notice of Assignment must be written under the hand of the Assignor. Until such time the Defendant receives express Notice of Assignment written under the hand of the Assignor the Claimant’s claim be struck out upon the grounds the Claimant has no standing in the court.
  22. Hi Simon There is no need to send a copy of the letter from Capitol One to Morgans, they already know the contents having sent you yourself a copy on the 18th January, they are asking if you recieved it and by way of acknowleding this they are asking you provide a copy of it, that makes no sense?
  23. From your post 107 yesterday you wrote With regard to their 'Request under civil procedure rules part 18 for further information', they have asked whether: Question One: Please confirm whether or not you received the letter dated 10th October 2011 from Capital One (as per the copy disclosed by the Claimant under cover of their letter of the 18th January 2012. If you did receive this letter please provide a copy of it to the Claimant. If you no longer have this letter please explain why not. Question Two: Please confirm whether you hold in your power, possession custody or control any other letters, statements or any other category of document which relates to the Capital One credit card account numbered xxxx (other tan correspondence between Morgan Solicitors and yourself and court orders relating to this Claim). If so, please provide copies of these documents to the Claimant. I have until 4pm on 24th February 2012 to reply to their Request under Civil Procedure and my own witness statement needs to be with them by 23 February 2012. Obviously you now have a copy of the letter dated 10/11/2011 from Capitol One as Morgans have sent it to you, what does the letter state? Secondly, you also say Morgans Solicitor’s have sent you the Claimants Witness Statement. Can you post the Claimant’s Witness Statement up
×
×
  • Create New...