Cabot/Morgan Solicitors-Court Action (ex Goldfish account)

[the_shadow]

Hmm surprised that they havent discontinued, they must know how bad the goldfish/msdw agreements are.

 

Only thing I would advise is to print out the Carey vs HSBC ruling, go through it and highlight all the times that Waksman mentions a reconstruction not being sufficient for enforcement cases but rather purely for s78 cases.

 

The reason I say this is today Cabot managed to convince a judge that a reconstruction was sufficient to enforce an agreement due to waksmans ruling in carey, i just feel convinced they may play it on in the hearing and suggest to the judge that a real copy is not required due to Carey. Prepared is pre-warned.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Shadow which case is the one you refer to? Is it on CAG?

 

Unfortunately yes, suspend belief and read this one

 

Kav3571 vs Cabot

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Whilst we know that Carey corresponds to s78 responses and not enforcement actions if it were me I'd be preparing my counter arguments to them using a reconstruction as in Carey now. At the end of the day its down to a judge on what they'll accept but yours sounds more clued up than most .

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hi,i have just checked my credit file equifax and it's marked on there that i settled a Barclay Credit card in May 2006,i never had a Barclays Credit card,it's the same last 4 numbers as Morgans have on the court papers they sent me on Saturday and the amount would have been around that amount at the time.i did not settle it.I have learned from the site earlier that Barclays did not take over Goldfish untill 2008.I just wonder who put this marker on equifax,i can not see it could be Barclays as they did not own Goldfish at the time.

 

barns66

 

When a debt is sold the responsibility for reporting the debt to the credit reference agencies passes to the new owner, they cant change the date of the default or shouldnt but they should report under there own name and not the original company... hence golfish/msdw will have become barclays

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hi,

 

I hope you dont mind, I've changed your URL's to IMG tags to display on the thread, I've only left the AQ's still as URL's.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Ok, Point 2 is good in that its forcing them to think about resolving the claim outside of the court process, if they dont wish to then they have to serve a witness statement to you 28 days prior to the trial stating why they think it shouldnt be resolved out of court, you then have 14 days to respond, both these statements will be looked at at the end of the trial and if the judge feels they should have settles then costs could be denied... we are talking on a fast track case approx costs of between 5k-10k so not small change.

 

As to the actual orders, its not asked for a new defence just given the timescale of the trial process I'm afraid.

 

Documents list to be exchanged by 5th April

Inspection requests to be complied with before 19th April

Witness statements to be exchanged before c.o.p. 19th April

[the_shadow]

It's all your fault then!

 

Seriously, looking at the new posts listings times, I think it was down for about six hours.

 

DDx

 

Up and down a few times during the day with large outages

 

Fingers crossed all sorted now.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Do ask any questions. I'll try to help and the others will too.

 

Absolutely right DD, were here to help

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hi,can i ask a couple of quick questions as i want to be fully prepared to defend this.Firstlly should i have been notified straight from Goldfish that they had sold the debt on to Cabot,the second question is can i ask Cabot how much they paid for the debt or get them to reveal to the judge how much they paid for it.

 

barns 66

 

IMO no you should not have been notified by Goldfish, it can come from either imo, the only requirement as I understand s136 of the land property act is that you ARE notified, not by who.

 

Yes you can ask to see the deed title but I dont think it'll help much, they will claim its sensitive and request the judge allows them to redact it and in all honesty he/she will so you wont get to see how much was paid, thats a commercial secret

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hi ,thank you Shadow and Hadituptohere fpr the information.I have a copy of the assingment with pages blacked out.I see the deed of assingment is dated 30th November 2007,i was not informed untill Aoril 2008 in a letter from Cabot that the debt had been assingned to them.I also know that i paid Goldfish a payment in early 2008.along with letters from Apex wanting to collect the arrears in January 2008 0n behave of Goldfish.Once again thank you for your kind help.

 

barns66

 

These companies always weave a tangled web... make sure your clear on your timelines and can produce the documents and add this to your bundle / witness statement in prep.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Great minds shadow, id have added to your rep had it have let me...

 

Hadituptohere

 

haha no probs... my tank appears full

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hi Satterthwaite

 

I read only the other day a thread where Cabot had produced a document which they claim is the Deed of Sale/Purchase, these documents arrive in their bundle and is 8 or 9 pages long But theres 8 and a half pages scrubbed out in black marker, Cabot claim this is case sensitive information and have a right to do this but in the case recently posted the DJ questioned this document and im pretty sure commented how that document proved no ownership. Mine contained my name and address and that they intended to purchase the debt nothing more.

 

Hadituptohere

 

Yes it should be noted that most deeds just state something like "all accounts held on data disk number 1" etc rather than list the full account/name details etc... they would need to produce the details from the disk#1 as well.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Cool best of luck with this.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

What a waste of space that extra witness statement is... offers nothing new just that they back up the original witness statement, well hardly surprising there is it

 

so..yes.. they are relying on the info previously given you

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Whenever Cabot buy an account they register a default in addition to the one registered by the OC.

 

Yep, they did that to me... havent been bothered to check my file for months now but suspect the original creditors default is still on there oh well more in my favour than theirs

 

S.

[the_shadow]

and how much are they claiming... just the missed repayments or the total debt as this was a credit card

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hi Shadow.i know omn mine they are claiming the full amount plus interest.althoug i have got a default notice from Golfish.I am at a big disadvantage now as when i sent my SAR to Barclays.Goldfishthey could not supply me with any documents as they said there was no account with that number or any my name or any at that address.

 

barns66

 

Ok, so they wont be using the non-default argument in your case and will use the section 87 to claim back all monies even those not due at time of termination/default. However if you have a signed letter from the original creditor stating they cannot find any record of this account then thats a plus to you in my books.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Yes its fine, I'm not totally sure whether it'll cover you but you are welcome to paste it into your thread.

 

If you want it put on the front I can do that for you.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Done, and in big red bold print

[the_shadow]

But unfortunately lots of DJs just lap it up.

 

Their private pensions are possibly linked into these big investment vehicles that invest in debt companies :-/

[the_shadow]

Hi barns66,

 

from how you have described the situation I can find nothing wrong with your approach, as others have stated dont rely on them to come making an agreement the fact is they won and now they will sit back and wait and possibly go for a CO... the more you can show that you have attempted to resolve this post judgment the better in my humble opinion.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Hmm a restriction is far less imposing than a charging order... with a restriction there is a duty on selling the property to advise the creditor of the sale but nothing that states a creditor must be paid off prior to the sale going through, important difference with charging order there.

 

Its a shame you didnt get a variance application in when the CCJ was forthwith as that would have pre-empted their charging order application and may have stopped them in their tracks if the judge felt it right to do so.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

At the end of the day you live to fight another day, so long as the payments are manageable and it gets paid off in the end its a win win situation. Keep an eye out for attempts to put interest on the debt if none was mentioned in the verdict tho.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Shadow,i will watch as they where allowed to add interest that they only charge what they where allowed.it was half what they asked for.Thanks once again.

 

barns66

 

hmm not sure I quite understand that but in any event take a look at this:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/entry.php?191-Post-judgment-interest-on-CCA-regulated-debts

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Read the link, they shouldnt have got anything

 

S.