Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Unsatisfactory Service under CCA claim it back from Cabot?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5977 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Right, I have a question.

 

I took out a loan (CCA regulated) and 2 cheques were used to pay off 2 accounts to Cabot (this was before I knew about the law). I am currently sueing them under Data Protection stuff and want to let that run its course befopre my next claim.

 

So, as I paid for their service with my new regulated agreement and the service was unsatisfactory I feel I may be able to claim it back from either Cabot or the lender who paid them off for me.

 

I know there is the unsatisfactory good/service clause in the CCA.

 

anyone got any advice they can give me? Anyone seen any similar threads?

 

Thanks. I will post anything I foind out ion this thread as I go.

 

I plan on talking to the FSA today and also the lender to see what the "unsatifactory service claim" process would be.

 

Just in time to send Cabot a christmas letter, may even include a chrissie card.

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

So s11, s12 & s75 of the CCA are maybe related of it. (highlight in red where I feel it is related)

 

11 Restricted-use credit and unrestricted-use credit

 

(1) A restricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement—

 

(a) to finance a transaction between the debtor and the creditor, whether forming part of that agreement or not, or

 

(b) to finance a transaction between the debtor and a person (the “supplier”) other than the creditor, or

© to refinance any existing indebtedness of the debtor’s, whether to the creditor or another person,

 

 

12 Debtor-creditor-supplier agreements

 

A debtor-creditor-supplier agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement being—

 

(a) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(a), or

 

(b) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(b) and is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or

 

© an unrestricted-use credit agreement which is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier”) other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.

 

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier

 

(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or © has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

 

(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

 

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

 

(a) under a non-commercial agreement, or

 

(b) so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000.

 

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

 

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Cabot doesn't supply a service to us mere mortals I don't really think this line of reasoning will fly.

 

Now admittedly, if it can be proved that Cabott "forced" you to take out this loan to pay the debts the the OFT need to be involved as this is seriously against their Collection guidelines and very underhand.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

So my thinking on this claim would be that Cabot have provided an unsatisfactory service because.

 

1 - The assignment was not properly executed

2 - The credit agreements are not properly executed or do not exists, or are illegible.

3 - no terms and conditions have been provided

4 - Misleading use of different company names within their structure to obtain funds from me

5 - Payment made to a company who does not own the debt or aledge to own the debt

6- I am sure there are more, they will come to me over time......

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curleyben

 

Whilst I agree we do not see the actions of Cabot as a service to us debtors, in the eyes of busines I think they do.

 

a service is surely an action provided by a supplier to a person for cash.

 

They have purchased (alegedly) a debt from the OC who was provideing a service, Cabot bought the full thing and are just being less helpful and harrassing/threatening (alegedly) in the collection of the outstanding funds on the purchased service.

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wanting to put a dampener on this but im in agreement with Ben, i feel its gonna fly as well as a DODO

 

Cabot have not supplied you with any service

in my opinion, you will not be able to recover monies paid ,even if by mistake , to a dca because of the Wilson-v- FCT judgment

 

i would strongly suggest you seek legal advice from a qualified and insured lawyer as i feel if you take this course of action you could leave yourself open for major cost implications

 

 

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cabot do refer to us as "customers" the OC is the Client (but that is shakey as they have actually sold the debt to Cabot so should realy be a supplier.

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I am not giving up until I have found the CCA proof....so I guess at the moment I an saying that I disagree with you:) but wouldn't the world be boring if we all just agreed. For a start Cabot would have a lot more settled debts on their books.:D

 

Do you have info.section number about CCA concerning Debt collectors?

 

i am just starting on this new line so any info would help.

 

thanks

  • Haha 1

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make is that Cabott are supplying a service to the OC and not us at all.

 

Check the CCA concerning Debt collectors.

 

I am treading carefully with this and until I have a full understanding am just playing with the idea but cabot refer to us as customers.

 

see this page Cabot Financial

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DM,

 

i have a full Law Library behind me at my work station plus full access to every legal database available

 

i have the full Halsburys series too so im sure i have something which would answer your questions, it would probably come under Consumer Credit or Choses in action so ill have a look in the PDFs i have on the pc as they are more easily searchable

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DM,

 

i have a full Law Library behind me at my work station plus full access to every legal database available

 

i have the full Halsburys series too so im sure i have something which would answer your questions, it would probably come under Consumer Credit or Choses in action so ill have a look in the PDFs i have on the pc as they are more easily searchable

 

Thanks Paul, I would like any info on the subject but I would not jump into something like this without the correct legal backing and advice.

 

It is a double sided sword as I can hassle both the poor service provider and also the lender, both of which made my life a misery and flaunt the law as far as possible, I just want to exersice the law and throw it back at them.

 

some may see this a sport.

 

Ta DM

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you can sue Cabot only if they were strictly the legal owners in accordance with s136 LPA 1925 for both accounts at the time you paid them off. Remember it depends to a large extent on what remedy or damages you are after... data protection, bank charges, extortionate bargain etc

 

However, I believe 95% of debt assignments are equitable, as many obligations/duties cannot be transferred without the consent or permission of the borrower.

 

If the assignments were equitable then you can sue Cabot as the lone party if your primary cause of action is based on data protection and injury to credit reputation.

 

Otherwise for any other causes you will have to sue both Cabot and the OC, as Cabot will and can present valid and cogent defences regarding its reliance on the OC, and on the flip side the OC can say it was no longer the legal owner following assignment. You may be left scratching your head.. Remember if you are forcing the issue, you really don't want to blackhole your campaign.

 

In short sue both Cabot and the OC you cannot go wrong. As which ever way the gun barrel points both will be treated as valid targets. It will then be down to them (Cabot & OC) to choose who takes the bullet.

 

:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, dear. So my argument that Barclaycard should never have sold my account and data on because the only document I ever signed expressley forbade them from sharing my data, holds true. HAHA. I think I'll be seeing them BOTH in court in the near future then.

 

Unfortunately, Cabot cannot claim in my case that they were reliant on BC, because they have been fully aware for some months now that this is exactly the scanario they are facing, and yet are bleating to the CSA that I should still have to pay up, and they are right to continue to proces my data.

 

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...