Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this. It's very helpful. You say that they have omitted their breach of duty of care. In other words they have admitted to negligence. The rest of your questions relate to quantum. Once you have established that they owed you a duty and that they have breached their duty then the only question is whether the losses they have caused you are easily foreseeable. Because they've admitted their breach of duty – and clearly it must be a duty which was owed to you, then the only question is how much are they going to pay you. The courts are not in the business of awarding more than your losses so you have to establish the extent of your losses headed variously under actual losses – ascertainable losses such as expenditure, loss of income and so forth. In all these are known as special damages – not because the special but because they are specific – you can specify them. After that it becomes more nebulous and you have to start calculating your General damages and that really is where the arguments will lie. Loss of value, loss of chance, loss of reasonable expectations and so forth. As you are already using a solicitor your solicitor will have much better access to resources for the calculation of quantum – but at the end of the day as they have already admitted negligence, it will come down to negotiation/haggle where you start it your highest and they start the lowest and you meet somewhere in between. Of course what can bring it to ahead is if you start to become very aggressive and rapid in your actions. These people are used to doing things very slowly and also they are used to stringing you along. Because they are dealing with your solicitor, that fits very much into that sort of culture because that's what your solicitor expects. On the other hand, there would be nothing to stop you leaping into action, sending them your demands for compensation – and then when they start to balk, you issue your letter of claim and then issue court proceedings. This would be unexpectedly assertive on your part and would put them on the back foot and false them to focus on the issue. Your solicitor will probably not want to go along with this approach. If you came at them with a demand for compensation, then you would have to have your figures very carefully worked out and justifiable. It must look like a money grab and if it went to court, the court would be very careful about examining your claim and making sure that you won't getting a penny more than the total of your losses. The purposes of damage in tort are to return you the position that you would have been in had the breach of duty not occurred. In other words to take you back to zero. Have you got any figure in mind for reasonable compensation? Another problem is that if the figure you want is more than £10,000, then if you sue for that figure you will find that your case is allocated to the Fast Track. The small claims track is where one sees for less than £10,000 and even if one loses, one does not pay the costs of the other side – the winner. On the fast track, if you lose the case then you will pay a fairly large contribution towards the cost of the winner. This can be very offputting and also well resourced defendants often exploit this when they know they are dealing with a litigant in person and they dragged the legal procedure out so that costs are racked up and the risk factor for the litigant in person claimant becomes even more serious so that the litigant in person realises that if they do lose the case, the cost that they will have to pay to the winner will cause them serious financial problems. What has your solicitor said about quantum? As you have engaged a solicitor then that really is the best person to be handling this although as I said, it will probably be drawn out – unless you get a Caravaggio or Christopher Marlowe -type who is prepared to kick below the belt.
    • 8/6/20 work commenced on our development land (outline permission granted in 2005) by UU to remove a leaking 4mt, 21" diameter section of damaged ACM pipe resulting in an excavation approx 8m diameter and 5mt deep.   10/6/20 Pipe broken up into smaller sections by digger bucket (2 main sections)to remove from hole, some debris was left in the hole, no PPE, RPE or adherance to COS regs (admitted by contractors)   10/6/20 Damaged pipe sections placed back into excavation at depth of 3mt and then the ACM was totally smashed up by the digger into hundreds of small pieces of debris and buried under the cover of night.  Again no PPE, RPE or adherence to COA regs.   27/7/20 Raised concerns of burial of asbestos on development land rendering it useless and valueless as believed to now be contaminated land.   28/9/20 2nd excavation commenced to remediate the land, works carried out ineffectually, ie not hand picked, but soil removed with a digger bucket and shaken and only large pieces which rose to the top removed for waste removal.  The spoil in the bucket that was left was then placed on the ground unprotected from the clean ground and then all that soil was replaced in the excavated area after large pieces removed.   11/10/20 Found 3 pieces of asbestos debris (differing sizes) lying loose on the land intimating that the excavated area is not clean based on the sizes found. UU advised and visited site but no intention to investigate further the excavated area. Requested a 'clearance' cert from UU or weight of asbestos waste removed to compare to weight of intact section of pipe. We require this  to apply for full planning permission on the site. UU will not provide although they have provided fibre tests showing no asbestos found.  We have now found approx 12 pieces of asbestos debris (without searching for it) all differing sizes.   9/11/20 Referral to Environmental Health, HSE, Ofwat and CCW.  HSE, Ofwat and CCW cannot help.   3/8/21 Envronmental Health Manager, local authority has now taken on the case and is investigating under the Environmental Protection Act and this will hopefully result in UU clearing the land under their notice.   Very brief bullet points there has much discussion between all of these dates. I have today requested an SAR from UU.   Question: What are we able to claim for against UU? (assuming the land is cleared by them under notice from Environmental Health) Breach of duty of care? (they have admitted to this) Fixed expenses we have incurred, ie, Solicitors costs (prior to case being taken on by our insurers), Civil engineer costs in locating  the pipes and marking with GPS coordinates, damages to driveway Delays to development plans? (currently we have only been to commence building one property on a site of 4 until this is rectified, the local council have advised that until we have the clearance certificate full planning permission would not be granted) Compensation for negligent actions?  Thank you
    • Well done for being on the ball and self helping!!.   Dx
    • I noticed that thread is sev years old. We might have moved on    Let @FTMDave advise    Monday will be fine. Don't sweat you are a litigant in person with certain leeways. Not that you need them mind.   dx        
    • Hello,    After a year and a half I have had my LBC and I am preparing the letter the forum has  advised people to send. I will post it here later today. vcs lbc.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Cabot and store card cca return


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5036 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Hi there


i wondered if someone would mind helping me? a year ago i came on this site at least once a day and cant even come close to putting a value on the help received.


In December 2006 i sent a CCA request to Cabot with regards to a store card. no reply. Until the post came YESTERDAY with a photocopy of an application form. I need to double check actual dates, but their deadline ran out mid January, LAST YEAR.


Could anyone advise me of the next thing to do please? Sooooo confused!!!


Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, after so long nthe debt becomes unenforcable , but since they have finally sent you one, can you scan it and post it on here so that we can check to see if it is enforcable or not.



Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey thanks for the replies - i dont have a scanner, but i can give u details of everything on it?


personal details - name, sex, DOB, nationality, password. anual income. phone number previous address, time at present address. bank account number and sort code.


small box at bottom - it DOES say Credit agreement regulated by the CCA 1974, but only 4 lines of legal stuff then a signature. no signature from the company. there is an authorised signature box, but its empty.


thats it :s

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK no problems.

Now to be enforceable the "agreement" MUST have the prescribed terms.



S61(1)(a) CCA provides that, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, it must contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement and conform to regulations under s60(1) – see Q1.14.


Reg 6(1) provides that the terms specified in Sch 6 to the Agreements Regulations are ‘prescribed terms’ for the purposes of s61(1)(a) and s127(3) – see Q8.2.


8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?


s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor – see Q1.21.


If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.



8.3 What are the prescribed terms?


The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows:


* amount of credit – see Q8.


* credit limit – see Q8.5

* repayments – see Q8.9.

* rate of interest – see Q8.6


Sch 6 was not amended by the 2004 Regulations.



Also check out Peter Bard's excellent thread on the subject: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/103383-agreement-enforceability.html

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows:


* amount of credit – see Q8. --- no


* credit limit – see Q8.5 ---no

* repayments – see Q8.9. ---no

* rate of interest – see Q8.6 ---no

there we go lol .... that little box basicaly goes over right to cancel, saying u have read the T&C, how we use your information, and your right to see the information held.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear what a shame ;)


Right then did Cabot say anything in the letter with the application ?

I would be inclined to ignore them for the moment until they come back with further demands for payment.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

they said they have now complied, which now means they can continue to pursue for payment. in one way it made me pee myself laughing at the length of time it took them to provide the agreement lol... on the other hand i was so angry they didnt apologise or anything, like they have done nothing wrong - they are DC's... what was a really expecting :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah a typical nastygram template.

I'd wait and see if they have anything else to say.

They don't have a leg to stand on.

Gives us a shout IF they write again.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...