Barclays ...Just back from Court ***WON***

[babybear39]

No problem Andrew and thanks for the information. I am currently going through the process of getting a number of cards dealt with and only Barclaycard (Mercers) and Egg (Capital Collections) have given me real grief so far but nothing I can't handle. From my limited experience of this Mercers appear to be a bunch of **EDITED**, **EDITED** **EDITED** and if Cabot are anything like I am glad they are suffering, well done everyone!

 

Mercers are inhouse collections for barclays

[Demonbarb]

Mercers are inhouse collections for barclays

Yes I know and until last week all I was getting from them was harrasment everyday despite everyday me telling them quite clearly what the situation was and who is dealing with it on my behalf. Finally spoke to someone who didn't want to shout and become abusive and she has sent me an authority to allow them to speak to my legal representative, not that they need one as I have given my solicitor written permission already but it made the lady at Mercers happy and she has sent the form so we will see what happens now.

[babybear39]

Yes I know and until last week all I was getting from them was harrasment everyday despite everyday me telling them quite clearly what the situation was and who is dealing with it on my behalf. Finally spoke to someone who didn't want to shout and become abusive and she has sent me an authority to allow them to speak to my legal representative, not that they need one as I have given my solicitor written permission already but it made the lady at Mercers happy and she has sent the form so we will see what happens now.

 

Definition of a happy DCA:

 

One that's just screwed a payment by card out of someone who can't possibly afford it!

 

One that's bullying, lying to and harassing their victims.

[hunni2006]

Well done herbie.

 

Now your case is over, it would be helpful if you could put up a copy of the defence you used.....

 

I am having my own battle with Cabot at the moment, the POC in your case was exactly the same as mine, but in my case the judge struck out the POC & gave them time to file an amended POC.... which after asking for more time, they eventually did last week.... so I just need to prepare myself for battle!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/202646-cabot-financila-vanquis-cc-8.html

 

any comments greatly appreciated!

Edited September 28, 2009 by hunni2006

[freethemice]

The difference between Debt Collection agencies and Cabot is that Cabot, like 1st Credit and a number of others are what they refer to as 'Debt Purchasers'. cabot are part of the Citi Financial empire now and they go and buy debt from the major card companies and banks for on average between 8 and 12p in the £ (although that's rising) then come after the likes of us for the full outstanding balance + interest and they use ' questionable' tactics to achieve their aim. Thanks to the synergy of this forum and the efforts of Caggers and of a number of others like we began in the Cabot Fan Club, Cabot have gone from making nearly £10 million profits in 2006/2007 to a loss of £6.7 million once we all started making them abide by the law. Shows what consumer pressure can drum up and the effect it has on these organisations and a swing in profit/loss of some 17-18 million is not to be sneezed at as a success rate.

Mmmm... I wonder if the more legally gifted watching this could make a legal argument out of this. Surely if Cabolt only paid £1,000 for a £10,000 credit card debt then like a full and final settlement that is all they are due. You're not in effect paying a debt owed but rather a tenth of a debt owed and a huge service charge! Just a thought!

 

Congrats by the way and if you could do a full write up of the court experience and any tricks their barrister/lawyer used that would be great for all us awaiting our day in court.

Edited September 30, 2009 by freethemice

[andrew1]

Mmmm... I wonder if the more legally gifted watching this could make a legal argument out of this. Surely if Cabolt only paid £1,000 for a £10,000 credit card debt then like a full and final settlement that is all they are due. You're not in effect paying a debt owed but rather a tenth of a debt owed and a huge service charge! Just a thought!

Congrats by the way and if you could do a full write up of the court experience and any tricks their barrister/lawyer used that would be great for all us awaiting our day in court.

 

It's good thinking , but it doesn't work like that sadly. They buy the debts under equitable assignment and the Law of Property Act - they buy the rights to the debt and although they take over the responsibility of the original creditor ( Yes Ken you have to supply agreements too under the CCA according to the OFT) they can come after you for the full amount.

 

What sickens most of us is that if they buy the debt of £1000 for £100 why should they charge you 12% interest on the outstanding balance of £1000 - the answer generally is that if you come to an arrangement to pay them something against this debt and do not pay then they can charge interest, if you don't make an arrangement I am under the impression they can't charge this but try.

 

Keep an eye on them, we know they don't get copies of the agreements from the Original creditors so rarely supply within the 14 days (12+2) as they go asking for them from the OC..if so then you write saying the accounts in dispute until they do and don't pay them until they come up with it. You never know, they might not have any right to it so I could write to you and you can pay me instead - if you wouldn't pay me, why pay them?

 

A1

[Murphy69]

Hi Herbie

Congratulations and well done for your persistence - Cabot are bullies, they try to intimidate and make the ordinary man/woman feel as if they a little more than idiots.

If you can please post final details of how and why the Judge came down in you favour and what you used as a final defence, this would be most useful.

I am currently in a major battle with Cabot that goes back to 2004 for 2 cca in total 15k. In 2007 I went to court and the Judge ordered a stay and asked for further evidence from cabot to counter my arguments. One loan had ppi from 99 and the other was credit card. my arguments were based on misselling of ppi +missing prescribed terms from the copy of the application form they supplied me with under a sar.

Cabot went back to court this year and asked for the stay to be lifted, almost 2 years after original stay direction. again went to court, judge refused to lift stay and set another date for oct 7th. I again submitted a further defence and asked judge NOT to life stay. The judge refused to to agree with Cabot and refused to lift stay. Cabot were represented in court, I was not. this is all good news, however, Cabot may appeal or take this to a higher judge. my case is still only stayed, not dismissed so obviously I still have possibly a fight to contend with. Hence I would love to hear how you won.

tia

[spamheed]

Well Done Herbie, cfredit where it's due, I've literally just been contacted and expect the worst, neither the OC, nor two other DCA have been able to provide a competent CCA, so I dont expect to be overwhelmed with evidence, but would be grateful if you would post your defence somewhere

[herbie171]

Well Done Herbie, cfredit where it's due, I've literally just been contacted and expect the worst, neither the OC, nor two other DCA have been able to provide a competent CCA, so I dont expect to be overwhelmed with evidence, but would be grateful if you would post your defence somewhere

 

 

This was my defence if you need any other info please ask

defence 4.doc

[herbie171]

Hi Herbie

Congratulations and well done for your persistence - Cabot are bullies, they try to intimidate and make the ordinary man/woman feel as if they a little more than idiots.

If you can please post final details of how and why the Judge came down in you favour and what you used as a final defence, this would be most useful.

I am currently in a major battle with Cabot that goes back to 2004 for 2 cca in total 15k. In 2007 I went to court and the Judge ordered a stay and asked for further evidence from cabot to counter my arguments. One loan had ppi from 99 and the other was credit card. my arguments were based on misselling of ppi +missing prescribed terms from the copy of the application form they supplied me with under a sar.

Cabot went back to court this year and asked for the stay to be lifted, almost 2 years after original stay direction. again went to court, judge refused to lift stay and set another date for oct 7th. I again submitted a further defence and asked judge NOT to life stay. The judge refused to to agree with Cabot and refused to lift stay. Cabot were represented in court, I was not. this is all good news, however, Cabot may appeal or take this to a higher judge. my case is still only stayed, not dismissed so obviously I still have possibly a fight to contend with. Hence I would love to hear how you won.

tia

 

 

Below and posted here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/202646-cabot-financila-vanquis-cc-8.html#post2472773

[MBNASlayer(1)]

Hi Herbie

 

Congratulations. I followed your posts with interests. Did the judge say if there was anything particular in your defence that proved fatal to Cabot?

[herbie171]

Hi Herbie

 

Congratulations. I followed your posts with interests. Did the judge say if there was anything particular in your defence that proved fatal to Cabot?

 

Only that Cabot had failed to prove the P/T were present

They did produce another blank application but that did not help them.

The two things of note Iain Lill is well rehearsed (I would say he lied) so I am guessing any other Cabot employee will be the same.

The Barrister who was representing Cabot tried to discredit my claim that the PT must be within the four corners of the signature document, he was claiming that a document could be 10 pages so anywhere within the agreement or the TaC would have been OK.

Mind I had a judge who was very very good. and that is a great help.

[MBNASlayer(1)]

Do you have a copy of your application and PT as the ones at the start of your post seem to have been emoved?

 

Thanks

[diddydicky]

good result well done

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Congratulations !!

[Brent-London]

The judge ordered that a witness statement from a person who had worked for Barclays Bank be submitted by Cabot who could testify that the P/T were on the other side of the application,

 

This was to be done by the 17th July 4.0pm. Today this arrived alone with a statement saying this is a copy of the application that was signed

 

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt274/corinadeva/050.jpg

 

It is now getting farcical.

I have been given the chance to resubmit my defence and would really like some help please

 

I'm having EXACTLY this argument with Cabot at the moment - they claim the T & Cs were on the back!

 

I'd love to see the statement they submitted above but the link no longer works - do you think you could send it to me?

 

They have sent me a "witness statement" from a Cabot employee saying that the T&Cs "would have been" on the back - how on earth does he know that? There is no statement from anyone at Barclays.

[herbie171]

Hi Brent

 

This is a copy of the first agreement that the judge agreed was illegible, and did not contain the prescribed terms

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt274/corinadeva/img098.jpg

 

This is the order, they asked for the adjournment, claiming that the prescribed terms were in fact on the back of the agreement, and they wanted to have a witness from Barclays Bank to testify to this fact.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt274/corinadeva/img099.jpg

 

 

This is what they produced to the court a blank piece of paper, and the witness turned out to be Iain Lill a Cabot employee, who was well coached and be sure will lie if he is the witness.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt274/corinadeva/img100.jpg

 

As you can see still no P/T

[Brent-London]

Hi Brent

 

This is what they produced to the court a blank piece of paper, and the witness turned out to be Iain Lill a Cabot employee, who was well coached and be sure will lie if he is the witness.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt274/corinadeva/img100.jpg

 

As you can see still no P/T

 

Thank very much for all this! Its great!

 

I have a very similar situation - an almost illegible application form, but they admit that only one side of the application was scanned in (one does wonder why Barclays did not scan both sides if they were so important!)

 

So this Iain Lill character - what did he actually say in his evidence? If its anything like my case, the Cabot employee (in my case Willem Wellinghof) says that he knows there are T&Cs on the back etc because of "his dealings with Barclaycard" (what a load of ****)

 

I am going to ask that his evidence is excluded on the basis that he has no personal knowledge of the form in question and I will ask for an order that they provide a witness statement from a competent, name Barclaycard employee, who can come to court and be cross-examined, about what may or may not have been on the back. I have a feeling that no-one from Barclays will stick their neck on the line, which is why you ended up with Mr Lill!

 

Brent

[herbie171]

Iain Lill a tall guy born in 83 bum fluff around the chin, smokes rolling tobacco, being in Kent I guess he does the day trips

In cross examination I asked him where he got the new clear application, he said "Barclays had supplied it", I ask was that the full document he said, "yes", I asked where were the P/T he said "they were attached to the side of the agreement" I then said so this is not the full document he then said "no", I asked why he had not filed the full document containing the P/T, as Cabot knew this was the corner stone of my defense and Cabot had asked for an adjournment, on the ground that the P/T were on the back of the document. He did not answer.

In summing up the Judge said he believed Iain Lill was truthful but he had not mentioned anything relating to the P/T in his statement and neither Barclays nor Cabot had produced them.He also went on to say that Iain Lil could not have seen the original document so could not have said if the P/T were attached

I used the Wilson case and when I was summing up the judge asked if I had a copy of the ruling might be useful to have a copy.

The Barrister for Cabot tried to argue that the P/T being contained within the four corners, could have meant the four corners of a 10 page document, not what I was saying a single page,also I think the Cabot barrister got a little distracted by the assignment as his skeleton argument went on about it and in court he also kept going on and on about it, all I said when he had finished about the assignment was that this was secondary as the P/T were missing so the court had no leeway so nothing else mattered and I was not going to waste the courts time

I must say I had a very good judge who was well up on this subject

[diddydicky]

Iain Lill a tall guy born in 83 bum fluff around the chin, smokes rolling tobacco, being in Kent I guess he does the day trips

In cross examination I asked him where he got the new clear application, he said "Barclays had supplied it", I ask was that the full document he said, "yes", I asked where were the P/T he said "they were attached to the side of the agreement" I then said so this is not the full document he then said "no", I asked why he had not filed the full document containing the P/T, as Cabot knew this was the corner stone of my defense and Cabot had asked for an adjournment, on the ground that the P/T were on the back of the document. He did not answer.

In summing up the Judge said he believed Iain Lill was truthful but he had not mentioned anything relating to the P/T in his statement and neither Barclays nor Cabot had produced them.He also went on to say that Iain Lil could not have seen the original document so could not have said if the P/T were attached

I used the Wilson case and when I was summing up the judge asked if I had a copy of the ruling might be useful to have a copy.

The Barrister for Cabot tried to argue that the P/T being contained within the four corners, could have meant the four corners of a 10 page document, not what I was saying a single page,also I think the Cabot barrister got a little distracted by the assignment as his skeleton argument went on about it and in court he also kept going on and on about it, all I said when he had finished about the assignment was that this was secondary as the P/T were missing so the court had no leeway so nothing else mattered and I was not going to waste the courts time

I must say I had a very good judge who was well up on this subject

 

which court were you in?

[herbie171]

which court were you in?

 

Nottingham

[Demonbarb]

I would have thought that a witness statment claiming the PTs were on the back is useless especially when the witness doesn't even work for Barclays. Unless someone can specifically remember dealing with your original application (highly unlikely) simply saying "the prescribed terms were on the back" wouldn't stand up in court? Its the same as having a witness statement when no agreement is produced but a bank employee says " there was definitely one completed", unless it can be proved surely such a statement is worthless?

[exchange]

It has to be complete nonsense. Why not bring in your own witness, anyone, because it doesn't matter who, and get them to say the PT's were not on the back? Why would your witness be any wiser than theirs?

[herbie171]

In my case it did turn out to be nonsense I won, but it shows how Cabot will try anything to win and how many people give up when they see a signed statement claiming this?.

[diddydicky]

It has to be complete nonsense. Why not bring in your own witness, anyone, because it doesn't matter who, and get them to say the PT's were not on the back? Why would your witness be any wiser than theirs?

 

yes, following on that thread one could easily bring witness statements from TWO caggers for every ONE plaintiff witness to say the opposite of whatever they are claiming

 

in this instance two caggers could say they have had identical agreements and none had PT's!!