How I beat Cabot and Hodsons

[davidro99]

Hi All,

 

I have not posted here for a bit as I was so engrossed in dealing with Cabot and Hodsons.

 

Basically, they sent their standard three line letter saying I owe them money (£5900 ish) and I sent them a three page letter back saying no I dont.. Prove it.

 

They issued and sent the file to Hodsons. I sent part 18 questions to Hodsons and the court along with my defence (about 20 pages long) listing their failures in the case and I today recieved this:

 

[EDIT]

 

It would take a while for me to post everything I sent to them, but if anyone could benefit from my assistance, I will be happy to oblige.

 

I shall be writing to Cabot first thing on Monday beginning my claim against them for costs. If anyone could assist by giving me the name of the director there, I read it here once but cannot remember where. I would like to write directly to him.

 

As a bit of background, I am a lawyer, but I do not deal with debt cases as a claimant. I help friends and family with debt defences and police fines etc.

 

If I can be of assistance, or you would like to know about a specific element of my case, please post here and I will try to respond.

 

Regards,

David.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Rooster-UK
Personal details removed.

[davidro99]

Hey,

 

Thanks for the messages, I shall post all of the info on the case shortly. too tired now. It was the part 18 request for further information which i copied from here and amended slightly that I think was the final nail in the coffin for them.

 

Cabot 0 = Dave 1

[davidro99]

Ok,

 

So here is the Defence I filed to their claim.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

In the NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT Claim Number [EDIT] XXXXX

 

 

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

(Claimant)

 

 

-v-

 

 

 

[EDIT] davidro99

(Defendant)

 

 

 

 

DEFENCE

 

 

 

 

• The Defendant acknowledges no debt whatsoever to the Claimant and/or any other company.
  

• The Defendant has no knowledge of any loan taken out through the Halifax Plc whether under reference xxx or otherwise. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of each and every allegation made within the particulars of claim.
  

• The Defendant admits that the sum of £6184.52 has not been paid to the Claimant by the Defendant. However, this is due to the contention that the Claimant has mis-identified the relevant Defendant and that the Defendant owes no money whatsoever to the Claimant.
  

• The Defendant received correspondence from the Claimant dated 27th December 2007 detailing an alleged debt. (See exhibit DJR1 attached)
  

• The Defendant telephoned the Claimant on 31st December 2007 at 11.15am to advise that the Defendant was not the debtor they sought payment from.
  

• The Defendant was advised during that conversation that it was for him to prove that he was not the debtor and not for them to prove he was.
  

• The Defendant sent an e-mail to the Claimant on 31st December 2007 at 11.19am stating that he was not the debtor they sought (see exhibit DJR2 attached). The Claimant failed to respond to that e-mail.
  

• The Defendant received a letter dated 21st January 2008 from the Claimant which had no reference to the e-mail sent previously (See exhibit DJR3 attached)
  

• The Defendant sent an e-mail to the Claimant on 24th January 2008 at 6.47pm further acknowledging no debt to the Claimant and requesting the Claimant provide evidence to show otherwise (See exhibit DJR4 attached).
  

• The Claimant responded to this e-mail on 25th January 2008 at 9.08am stating: “Thank you for your e-mail, it has been passed to the relevant department for review. Please note that our fully responce will be delivered to your postal address”. (See exhibit DJR5 attached).
  

• The Claimant failed to fully respond to this e-mail.
  

• The Claimant then performed a search of the Defendants credit reference file on 28th January 2008 under cover of an ‘unrecorded enquiry’ (See exhibit DJR6 attached). This search was performed without the Defendants permission.
  

• The Defendant then received a letter from Hodsons Solicitors dated 28th February 2008 warning of court proceedings and failing to provide a response to the Defendants letters of 31st December 2007 and 24th January 2008 (See exhibit DJR7 attached).
  

• The Claimant again performed a search on the Defendants credit reference file on 29th February 2008 under cover of an ‘unrecorded enquiry’ (see Exhibit DJR8 attached). This search was performed without the Defendants permission.
  

• The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 3rd March 2008 requesting a copy of the executed agreement the Claimant was seeking to enforce (See exhibit DJR9 attached). The Claimant has failed to respond to this letter.
  

• The Claimant performed yet another search of the Defendants credit reference file on 3rd March under cover of an ‘unrecorded enquiry’ (See exhibit DJR10 attached). This search was performed without the Defendants permission.
  

• The Defendant also wrote to Hodsons Solicitors on 3rd March 2008 on similar terms to that sent to the Claimant of even date (See exhibit DJR11 attached). Hodsons Solicitors have failed to respond to this correspondence.
  

• The Defendant avers that the Claimant has brought a claim against an innocent person who has no connection with the Debt claimed. The Defendant attaches a list of possible alternative Defendants and the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has explored all of these possible alternatives prior to issuing these proceedings against the current Defendant (See exhibit DJR12 attached).
  

• The Claimant has failed to provide responses to correspondence and enquiries with the Defendant and/or provide satisfactory evidence that the Defendant is the correct Debtor in this instance pre-action.
  

• The Claim for interest is noted.
  

• The Defendant therefore denies any connection with the debt whatsoever, in any form, and at any time. The Claimant is put to strict proof of each and every allegation within its Particulars of Claim.
  

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

 

 

Signed. ………………………………..

[EDIT] davidro99

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Any questions about this, please ask.

 

I shall shortly post the Part 18 Request.

 

Dave,

Edited June 23, 2008 by Rooster-UK
Personal details removed

[davidro99]

Ok guys,

 

SO here is the part 18 Request for further information which I served on the Claimant in this instance.

 

I find it important to use this document in the correect manner. I have seen it referred to on this site incorrectly and incorrect descriptions of what it is and how it should be used.

 

A request for further information under Part 18 is a document which should be lodged at the relevant county court at the time of serving it on the other party. In my particular case, I sent this in with my N150 (Allocation Questionnaire). Usually, the court would then set directions leading to a hearing, but the court simply sent a copy od my request to Hodsons without dealing with directions.

 

This suggested to me that the judge who reviewed the matter decided that he would like to see the response before making any decisions and, wholly in my opinion, he saw that their case was week.

 

21 days after service of such a request, you can make an application to the court for summary judgement in absence of their compliance but in my case (unfortunately) I did not get thet far.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

 

(Claimant)

 

 

 

-v-

 

 

 

[EDIT] davidro99

 

 

(Defendant)

 

 

 

 

 

Part 18 Request FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

 

 

 

 

 

Under Part 18 CPR the Defendant hereby requests that the Claimant provide the following information:-

 

 

1. If it remains your case that it is your case that the Defendant is the correct Defendant in this instance and not a mis-trace, please supply the following:

• 
  
  • A true copy of the executed credit agreement and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time of default and at the time the account was opened,
    
  • Details of the Branch at which the loan was issued,
    
  • The address given by the applicant at the time when the loan was issued,
    
  • Any previous addresses given by the applicant;
    
  • The account details the loan was paid into,
    
  • A copy of the applicants signature
    

2. Please provide copies of all correspondence sent to xxxxxxxx

 

3. Details of when you purchased the Debt, from whom and the cost of this Debt;

 

4. Please provide details of the number of searches performed on [EDIT] davidro99 and the number of different matches obtained.

 

5. Of any other possible matches for the Debtor, please explain how you have eliminated them from your enquiries.

 

6. Please provide copies of all correspondence sent to any other address in relation to this matter.

 

7. All records you hold on me relevant to this case, including but not limited to:

a. A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, repayments and payments and both the original amount of the loan and any repayments made to it the account.

b. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that you or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

c. Documents relating to any insurance added to the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted (if applicable).

d. Details of any collection charge added to the alleged debt; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers.

e. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this alleged debt and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied.

f. A genuine copy of any deed of assignment, or proof that you have a legal right to this money.

g. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998

h. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

 

 

 

 

THE DEFENDANT HEREBY REQUIRES THE ABOVE INFORMATION WITHIN 21 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS REQUEST. THE CLAIMANTS REPLIES MUST BE ENDORSED WITH A STATEMENT OF TRUTH.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

If there are any queries regarding this document, please reply.

 

Dave,

Edited June 23, 2008 by Rooster-UK
Personal details removed.

[davidro99]

Hi,

 

In relation to what PT has said above, the way in which I dealt with the claim could be of assistance to many of the users here. Whilst I was genuinly not the correct debtor, a defendant is wholly within his rights to neither admit nor deny the claim and put the Claimant (Cabot) to strict proof of their allegations.

 

On this point, they will surely fail. Then all you need to do is lodge similar Part 18 requests to mine above and they, again, will fail to be able to comply with this.

 

had I not recieved the discontinuance, then my next step was a simple application to the court for summary judgement because 'the claimant has no real evidence in support of his claim'.

 

Hope my information may have helped someone.

 

Dave,

[davidro99]

Paul,

 

there is no mis-understanding here and I agree that people may well be doing themselves a dis-service by simply copy and pasting things off here.

 

It is important that people understnad that they need to make it their own with some amendments specific to them.

 

People just need to remember that it if for the Claimant to prove their case and not the Defendant to prove otherwise. Always the best way in law.

 

Here's to more success.

 

Dave,

[davidro99]

Hey guys,

 

My letter to Ken Maynard went to him today by e-mail and post. I shall not post the contents yet, but will do so once I hear from him. If I do not hear in a few days, then I will post anyway.

 

Dave,

[davidro99]

Hey all,

 

I recieved today a letter direct from Willem Wellinghoff regarding my coimplaint to Ken maynard. He is, apparently, investigating it and will contact me within the next 10 working days.

 

I will not hold my breath just yet!

 

His response will be posted here!!

 

Dave

[davidro99]

Thanks Elizabeth,

 

Maybe Alamand should start his own thread where I am sure people will be happy to assist in his particular case or clarify things he is not sure of.

 

My particular scenario is not entirely like others on here in that I never had a loan with the company they purported to be acting for.

 

Incidentally, with Willem's most recent letter, he enclosed a booklet telling me of my rights. (but not all of them - they missed out some important ones (on purpose?))

 

I shall allow them the 10 working days becuase I am a nice person!!, but then if no response is recieved, Mr Wellinghoff is going to get a letter from me and the complaint(s) will definately go off to the relevant organisations.

 

Regards,

David.

[davidro99]

I can, later, as my scanner is not connected at the moment.

 

The most laughable one in there is that they say

 

"in the event that we make a mistake, or we could have done something better, we will do our best to put this right for you"

 

I think, what they were supposed to say was

 

"Our staff are untrained and do not know the law. As a result, we often cut corners, give misleading statements, fail to provide any information and have no idea if you are the right person, but if you point this out to us, we will continue to defend our position and try to squirm our way out of every situation that arises."

 

Dave,

[davidro99]

Can you believe it..... I am now going through the whole process again, but with Lowlife Financial.

 

I have sent them my final helpful letter today and lets see if they pass it to their litigation department!!!

 

I have never even had a Capital One card that they are chasing payment for.

 

Well, here goes again.

 

David,

[davidro99]

Hey BB,

 

Just to clarify, I am NOT a qualified solicitor. I work as a lawyer, but never saw through the studies. Instead I went for experience behind a desk adn this has paid off for me.

 

I am just very interested in the law and learn by teaching myself what I need to know, when i need to know it.

 

Wellinghoff has only a few days left to respond, then he will feel full force of a CAG member. is his e-mail just wwellinghoff@crapbot do you know?

 

Regards,

David.

[davidro99]

So, I recieved a response from Willem. I think it is quite self explanatory.

 

 

Woo Hoo!

 

Dave,

[davidro99]

It would seem so as my complaint was for this in addition to their incompetence. They paid the figure I suggested to them which makes my regret not putting a larger amount!

 

Oh well, I shouldn't complain

 

regards,

[davidro99]

Hi Tomterm,

 

I am considering action against the company that provided the CRA with the incorrect info as it was them who caused all the problems.

 

Dave,

[davidro99]

Hi Dipply,

 

The best way of dealing with Cabot and/or other DCA's is to put them to proof of their claims which, of course, they are unable to do on 99.9% of the matters that they handle.

 

Cabot admitted to me that they purchase only the basic details from their suppliers and this, i believe, is their downfall.

 

They rely solely on 'customers' rolling over and holding their hands up. If everyone challenged them to prove their claims, then they would be in hot bother, quickly.

 

I would suggest to anyone who gets a letter to send a simple return letter requesting that they prove one or all of the things I put in my part 18 request for further information to them at the beginning. And then to suggest that if they are sure of their assertions, to litigate.

 

Dont bother with all these SAR's and CCA letters as these hinder in up to two ways. Firstly, the delays caused give the DCA chance to collate evidence and secondly, the payment you make is wasted as the infromation HAS to be supplied for free post litigation.

 

Personally, I will never pay a penny to anyone of these types of companies without litigation first.

 

You will find that a lot of the DCA's are unwilling to litigate on any matter unless it is of a value over £5000.00 and there is good reason for this.

 

Any claim of less than this amount results in the lawyer getting £80.00 costs. Maximum. Any sum over this will result in standard costs being payable: therefore the DCA's are not going to spend money on an issue fee unless it is worth it for them.

 

In addition, even if you were the correct debtor, they have to prove this to the court before any order will be made against you. It would always be adviseable to get the matter to a hearing pronto if a DCA litigates because this gives them less time to prepare and request any supporting docs that they would need in order to be successful.

 

Further, and in addition to this, their actions would look sloppy to the court if you can prove that they are trying to rely upon documentation that they did not supply prior to litigating. Refer them to the 'spirit of the protocols' here. The court prefer it if you litigate as a last resort and so the DCA's ways do not comply with this at all.

 

Use it against them!!

 

if this does not make sense, please say so and I will try to explain differently.

 

Dave,

 

PS - thanks for the support guys.

[davidro99]

As you guys have said, it is of course beneficial to ask the DCA's to supply the information prior to them issuing a claim, because then you can show the court that they have failed to explore all settlement oppertunities thus little weight should be applied to their case.