Cabot... ding-ding, Round 3 ***WON***

[Last of the Mohicans]

Well, set aside won... and after another judge nearly threw out the defence because of lack of a Statement of Truth, which thanks to the Forum was sorted in the nick of time, a further judge sent out a long order (sorry I dont have it here right now) stipulating that our chums should pay £300 into court, and not turn up unless they had an agreement, a default notice and all sorts of other stuff as put in my defence (cant find the post with that in now, but its out there somewhere).

 

Well, they paid - which is kind of scary - but then I think thats what they want, and are still hoping that I bottle out. So, we go to the case... but do we?

They are still in breach of both a CCA request amd an SAR...

 

So, can someone correct me if I'm wrong her please? Since the case was set aside, proceedings start again... and since they have failed to honour the CCA request, they cannot take me to court?

 

If that is the case, how do I notify the Court and get proceddings stopped?

 

Cheers

 

LotM

[Last of the Mohicans]

Puntaroo... anyone have any thoughts on this - or it that Cabot WANT me to stall the case and hope I will..?? Seems very strange that they went all that way without a scrap of paper, and now suddenly they have the (alleged) agreement, default notice, account history etc that the judge has ordered them to present...

[miss muppet]

Not quite sure what you mean here LoM, do you mean set aside for a Statutory Demand,or Summary Judgement ?

[Last of the Mohicans]

Not quite sure what you mean here LoM, do you mean set aside for a Statutory Demand,or Summary Judgement ?

 

this was a Judgement (including a Final Charging Order) that was squirted through Northampton by Cabot in my absence. I got the lot Set aside a month or so ago, and the Judge when setting aside the judgement put the case on again saying "it starts again" (ie, as if I'd just recieved their PoC), despite Cabot not having adhered to a CCA request.

 

After that, another judge - presumably having read my defence, and noted that they have at no point provided any paperwork whatsoever - set an order for a hearing in July where they must a) pay £300 to continue (which they have) and b present to court the agreement, the default notice, the account history and a couple of other thjing which were in my defence. So... jusging from them having paid £300, they must feel they have an agreement? yet they are still in breech of my CCA request...

 

I'm confused :?

[miss muppet]

I don't blame you for being confused. How long have they been given to produce the documents mentioned?

[havinastella]

Have you sent a CPR request?

 

Jogs

[Last of the Mohicans]

Have you sent a CPR request?

 

Jogs

 

Months ago, which they havent satisfied.

 

Miss M - they have to produce them at the hearing in July.

[bazaar]

LOM if you sent a CPR off, when did they default on this and did you make a claim against them?

[Last of the Mohicans]

LOM if you sent a CPR off, when did they default on this and did you make a claim against them?

 

CCA request went off, got the usual Cabot "we are not obliged" bullshizen, the time limit expired months ago. When they failed on that I sent the CPR - they ignored it, but acknowledge that it happenned in the pile of rubbish they presented at the Set Aside hearing. No I didnt make a claim against them - didnt know that I could?

They are also in default of the SAR they were sent (which they also acknowledged in the Set Aside rubbish)

 

Here is a scan of the order.

Sorry for the delay, but as I'm in abroad this stuff takes a while to get to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add: this is their original PoC

 

 

Cheers

 

Mo

Edited July 2, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans

[Last of the Mohicans]

Any chance of some ideas here please? I've got to get stuff in next week and as I'm abroad that takes a little more time than just trotting down the post office.

 

What should I put in to the Caimant and the court? Do I use the same defence I used last time with a statement of truth? Do I counter-claim?

Is there a way I can stop the hearing since they are in breach of a CCA request? Is there a way that I bring that into my case prior to the case being heard?

 

Kinda lost here - and its kinda quiet

[Last of the Mohicans]

Letter in the post in the UK dated 3rd July (having booked the ferry for the court yesterday - 150 sovs down the drain ) - Cabot "Discontinuing the case"

 

Cant say more, should get a scan of the letter tomorrow.

 

Curiouser and curiouser...

[Last of the Mohicans]

 

Just phoned the Court and they confim that Cabot have put in an N279 and (quote) "Thats the end of the case" - so I guess we chalk that down as a win. I'll get my defence posted up for others to use at some point today (I was a bit leary of keeping stuff up while it was ongoing for obvious reasons)

 

I'd just like to say a huge thanks to everyone who helped on here, and to Cabot a big "F**k you - you wont be schmoozing it on the BBC next year, you retarded crooks."

 

Well, maybe on Watchdog LOL :grin:

 

Last question... can anyone help me with how I get back my costs from these ****bags please??

[Spamalot]

No help or advice I'm afraid.. too green in these matters.. but a big fat..

 

WELL DONE MO!

 

Spam.

[supasnooper]

Congratulations and well done !

 

Here's a few links on wasted costs -

 

WASTED COSTS THREADS

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...8.htm#IDAMEC5B

 

Sharpman v Nationwide credit card services ***WON WITH WASTED COSTS***

 

Welcome/Cohens - case withdrawn ***WOO-HOO ***

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1701510.html

 

have a look at this post by IGNM on costs as well -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/184381-my-day-court-circus-post2261467.html#post2261467

[Last of the Mohicans]

OK, I had a quick look at SurfaceAgents post in there, and this is what I come up with, so can someone run there eye over it for any mistakes or ommisions please? I expect Cabot will enjoy paying for me to travel backwards and forwards to the UK....

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Case No: xxxxxx

 

IN THE xxxxxxxx COUNTY COURT

B E T W E E N:

 

Cabot Financial

(Claimant)

 

-and-

 

Last of the Mohicans

(Defendant)

 

DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS

After Service of the Claimant’s Notice of Discontinuance.

Costs Payable by the Claimant

CPR 38.6 and CPR 44.12(1)(d)

 

 

 

On (date) the Claimant served Notice of Discontinuance of the whole of its claim.

 

At all times the Defendant was a Litigant in Person within the meaning of Litigants in Person

(Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 and time spent by the Defendant is charged herein at an

hourly rate of £9.25.

 

The nature of the case being one of relitigation required the Defendant to spend time in

locating and examining the documents and other papers which related to the proceedings begun by the Claimant.

 

The Defendant was obliged to spend time in considering and understanding numerous strands

of law including the law of consumer credit, the law of limitation and practice and procedure in

the County Court which he achieved through internet and library research.

 

The Defendant was obliged to learn of and understand and further send to the Claimant a request under the Consumer Credit Act for a copy of the original agreement which the Claimant should have had in their possession prior to commencing their claim against the Defendant, and further write to the Claimant when the Claimant admitted that they were not in possession of the agreement they had based their vexatious claim upon.

 

The Defendant was obliged to learn of and understand and further send to the Claimant a request under the Data Protection Act for a copy of the original agreement and other papers which the Claimant should have had in their possession prior to commencing their claim against the Defendant, and further write to the Claimant when the Claimant admitted that they were not in possession of the agreement they had based their vexatious claim upon.

 

The Defendant was obliged to travel within the UK to xxxxxxxx County Court in order to pay £75 to request a Set Aside hearing, and prepare a defence to place with that request.

 

The Defendant was obliged to spend time in drawing his defence and application to Set Aside

in a way which complied with the relevant rules and practice directions of the CPR.

 

The Defendant was obliged to travel from France to the UK specifically in order to attend the Set Aside hearing on (DATE), the total journey time of the Defendant being in total approximately 24 hours (outward and return) plus fuel and wear and tear on the Defendants vehicle consistent with driving for a total of approximately 600 miles, including approximately 40 miles local travel to and from court.

The defendants vehicle is capable (at best) of approximately 22 miles to the gallon, giving a total cost to the Defendant for fuel of £630, plus the costs of ferry travel and travel insurance from France to the UK and the UK to France, this item being a total of £148.00. Whilst in the UK for the Set Aside hearing, the Defendant contributed to his lodging costs with a friend, but chooses not to claim for this expense in the interests of simplicity.

 

The Defendant was further obliged to consider the Notice of Discontinuance and its effect upon the

litigation and his consequential rights and obligations to include his rights and obligations upon

the matter of costs and the relevant rules and practice directions of the CPR in reference to

the detailed assessments of costs as applied to Litigants in Person.

 

The following is a statement of the work done in the course of the proceedings, in addition to the travel expenses noted above.

Where there is a charge for time spent, the amount of time recorded as spent represents the Defendants fair estimate of the amount of time spent by him

Claimed (£)

 

1 Date

Particulars of claim

 

2 Date

Acknowledgement of Service

 

3 Date

Defence

 

3

4 Date

 

Receiving and considering the Claim Form and Particulars of

Claim (3 hrs) £27.75

 

Searching for and locating the papers and other documents

relating to proceedings (4 hrs) £37.00

 

Research regarding consumer credit law, the Data Protection Act, the law of limitation

and law regarding relitigation (30 hrs) £277.50

 

Preparing Defence (4 hrs) £37.00

 

Preparing Set Aside Application (4 hrs) £37.00

 

Delivering by hand the Defendant's Application

to Set Aside (4 hrs) £37

PAID: court Fee £75.00

 

Preparing and delivering to the Claimant a Subject Access Data request made under the Data Protection Act (4 hrs) £37

 

Receiving and considering Notice of Discontinuance (1 hr) £9.25

 

Research regarding CPR 38.6 and CPR 44.12 (10 hrs) £92.50

 

Research regarding detailed assessment proceedings

and Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (10 hrs) £92.50

 

Preparing bill of costs and notice of commencement of

costs proceedings (6 hrs) £55.50

 

Time spent in telephone calls (from France, and within the UK) letters and emails

written and received (8 hrs) £74

 

Travel costs as noted above:

 

Defendants time: (24 hrs) £222.00

 

Defendants fuel costs and wear and tear of vehicle: (£1 per litre fuel, plus 50% for wear and tear over 630 miles) £195.44

 

Defendants ferry costs: £148.00

 

Defendants time attending Set Aside hearing: (5 hrs) £46.25

 

 

Summary:

Costs payable by the Claimant £1388.69

Disbursements (court fee) 75.00

Total costs payable by the CLAIMANT £1463.69

 

 

Dated:

Signed:

 

 

Edit: Ooops, fuel costs were wrong... forgot to divide by mileage :oP

Edited July 9, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans

[miffedpuppy]

May I put my tuppence in?

 

Although they discontinued it does not stop them from selling off the alleged debt to another DCA and you going through the whole thing again with someone else further down the food chain.

 

 

Your costs are not insubstantial and should put the fear of god up them, however, if you can get them to agree to provide you with an undertaking that they wil not sell on the debt to anyone else and to undertake never to persue the debt again and to remove all information from your credit file with regard to the alleged debt in return for you bearing your own costs would that not be worth it from the peace of mind point of view.?

Looking at your fuel costs maybe you could get them to pay that as well?

 

Just a thought.

[Last of the Mohicans]

May I put my tuppence in?

 

Although they discontinued it does not stop them from selling off the alleged debt to another DCA and you going through the whole thing again with someone else further down the food chain.

 

 

Your costs are not insubstantial and should put the fear of god up them, however, if you can get them to agree to provide you with an undertaking that they wil not sell on the debt to anyone else and to undertake never to persue the debt again and to remove all information from your credit file with regard to the alleged debt in return for you bearing your own costs would that not be worth it from the peace of mind point of view.?

Looking at your fuel costs maybe you could get them to pay that as well?

 

Just a thought.

 

Its a good thought, but ... b*ll*cks to them

[trooper68]

Its a good thought, but ... b*ll*cks to them

 

 

If they do sell on, can you catch them on the Data Protection Act?

 

Trooper68

[bazaar]

The final bit on your draft should be total payable by Claimant.

Bloody good show old chap

[Last of the Mohicans]

The final bit on your draft should be total payable by Claimant.

Bloody good show old chap

 

 

Well spotted, and thanks

 

Can someone tell me if I've completed it right, and what I actually do with the bl**dy thing? :grin:

 

Do I post it to the Court? or to the Judge that would have heard the case?

 

Cheers

[Rhia]

I know someone else here on CAG who put in costs to Morgans (used to be Hodsons) for a case they again discontinued and they got all their costs by return and the court wasn't involved.

I would send it direct and cover the court in with a copy.

[Last of the Mohicans]

I know someone else here on CAG who put in costs to Morgans (used to be Hodsons) for a case they again discontinued and they got all their costs by return and the court wasn't involved.

I would send it direct and cover the court in with a copy.

 

Thanks Rhia and to everyone for your input - so, I can send this as it is to both the Court and Morgan/Cabot/whoever they are this week just as it stands with no alteration or additions? If thats so I will get that sent to them tomorrow.

 

 

If it helps anyone, heres my Defence as put:

 

Claim Number: XXXXXXX

In the XXXXXX County Court

Between

Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd

(Claimant)

And

XXXXXXXXXX

(Defendant)

The Claimant states in their Particulars of Claim that a Credit Card Account number 1566150 is the basis of their claiming from the Defendant the sum of £XXXXXXX

The Claimant`s particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16.

In this regard the Defendant wishes to draw the Court’s attention to the following:

 

a) The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action.

b) No particulars are offered in relation to the method the Claimant has used to calculate any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim.

 

c) No agreement appertaining to the account which the Claimant cites in their Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has been served attached to the claim form.

 

d) No evidence of either the scope and nature of any default nor proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged account has been served attached to the claim form.

The Defendant therefore puts the Claimant to Strict Proof in the following matters:

1) The Claimant has to date failed to supply to either the Court, or the Defendant, any true copy of any alleged agreement, and further, the Claimants denial in writing of ever having any copy, True or Original, of any agreement appertaining to the account that the Claimant bases their claim upon.

2) The Claimant has to date ignored a request made by the Defendant under the Civil Procedure Rules for a copy of any Original signed agreement held by the Claimant that appertains to their claim.

3) That the Claimant should present to the Court and the Defendant a full and correct statement of account from inception of the account to the current date, including proof of purchases made by the Defendant using the Credit Card and interest, penalties and other charges added to the account.

4) That the Claimant should present to the Court and the Defendant a True Copy of the complete and correctly constituted Notice of Assignment appertaining to the account, and of delivery of the said Notice of Assignment to the Defendant, as per The Law of Property Act: vis: proof of recorded or registered posting and delivery to the Defendant

5) That the Claimant should present to the Court and the Defendant a True Copy of the complete and correctly constituted Default Notice the Claimant sent to the Defendant.

And further

6) The Claimant has claimed interest under the County Courts Act 1984, whereas the Claimant is, or should have been, fully aware that to do so was unjust and an abuse of Court. The Defendant avers that the Claimant could not, by their own hand, have had sight of any agreement upon which to base their claim for interest.

It is further brought to the Courts attention that the Claimant is in breach of the Data Protection Act in the matter of failing to provide to the Defendant any documentation whatsoever, as legally requested of the Claimant by the Defendant under a Subject Access Request.

In the matter of 1)

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has no right of action.

a) It is drawn to the Court`s attention that the Claimant has, by their own hand, denied being in possession of any agreement appertaining to the account which he bases their claim upon. Further:

b) the Claimant refused to supply a True Copy of the alleged Agreement to the Defendant in reply to his lawful and reasonable request made under the Consumer Credit Act.

For clarity, the Consumer Credit Act s78(1) states:-

 

78. Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement.-

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,-

(a)the state of the account, and

(b)the amount, if any currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor,

©the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

The Consumer Credit Act 5.S78(6) sets out the consequences of failure to comply with such a request and states:-

s78 (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)-

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence

It is respectfully drawn to the Court’s attention that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Defendants request and is therefore in clear default of its obligations under s78 (1) CCA.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has no right of action due to s78(6) until such time as the default is remedied and the True Copy of the executed agreement is produced before the defendant containing the prescribed terms under Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and signed in the prescribed manner by the debtor and creditor.

For clarity, The Consumer Credit Act 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. The prescribed terms are laid down in the judgement TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299, vis:

"- In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them.

On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

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

Since the Claimant has produced to neither the Court nor the Defendant sight of any agreement, and has by the Claimant’s own hand denied having any agreement the Defendant avers that the Claimant has no right to claim, and any claim made by the Claimant is knowingly vexatious, and that any judgement obtained by the Claimant is wrong in law and cannot stand.

It is further drawn to the Courts attention that the Claimant, having clearly failed to comply with the Defendants request and therefore being in clear default of their obligations under s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 has, and had, no right of action until such time as the default is remedied, and a True Copy of the executed agreement is produced before the Defendant containing the prescribed terms under Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and signed in the prescribed manner by the debtor and creditor.

An Act of Parliament, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, precludes a creditor bringing an action before the court where they have themselves failed to discharge their obligations under the Act.

Therefore the Defendant respectfully suggests that the only just action that can be taken is the Claimants case be struck out forthwith.

In the matter of 2)

The Claimant has ignored the Defendant’s lawful and reasonable request to supply a copy of the alleged Original Agreement made under the Civil Procedure Rules on 12th March 2009.

As per Ap.1, the Claimant has stated that they are not in possession of any copy, whether True or Original, of the alleged Agreement upon which to base their claim. The Defendant avers that it follows that the Claimant was not in possession of any such agreement when commencing their original claim, nor when pursuing their further claims based upon it.

Notwithstanding the Claimant’s use of the Northampton Bulk Centre to file claim, and the leeway given under the online filing system to Claimants in terms of including documentation with their claim, it remains a legal prerequisite that the Claimant should be in possession of such documents as their claim is based upon at the time of presenting a claim.

Once such claim is moved to another Court, the Plaintiff loses any leeway as is offered by Northampton Bulk Centre online filing system.

However, the Claimant has demonstrated by their own actions, and in their own written evidence (Ap. 1) that they were not in possession of the documents that they based their claim upon, and therefore the Defendant avers that the Claimant’s action in this matter is both vexatious and an abuse of the Court process.

 

In the matter of 3)

The Claimant bases a claim of £3,701.55 made against the Defendant in the matter of a Credit Card Account. The Defendant is not, and has never been, in possession of any Statements regarding such an account, and puts the Claimant to Strict Proof that the Claimant holds such Statements in their possession, showing as they must:

a) the dates and amounts of all transactions made to the account

b) the date and amounts of such charges, penalties and interest as have been placed on the account from inception to date, and

c) whether such charges, penalties and interest are rightfully and legally claimed

The Defendant avers that without sight of such statements neither the Claimant nor the Court can correctly assess or pass judgement on the accuracy of the amount claimed.

In the matter of 4)

The Claimant claims to have “purchased” a debt of £3,701.55, notwithstanding that the Claimant has by their failure to supply to either the Court or the Defendant an agreement meeting the criteria laid down under the Consumer Credit Act as noted at 1 above.

In doing so, the Claimant has offered to neither the Court nor the Defendant any proof of owning the debt claimed, nor what form such ownership takes, whether full, or equitable, in novation, or if indeed whether the Claimant owns the alleged debt at all.

Notwithstanding the vagueness of the Claimants Particulars of Claim, vis the term “purchased”, since the Claimant is not joined in Claiming by the alleged Original Creditor, the Claimant seems to ask the Court to believe that either an Absolute or Equitable Assignment of the alleged debt has taken place whereas with sight of no Agreement and no proof of Assignment, neither the Court nor the Defendant can ascertain whether:

a) Any Assignment has legally taken place

b) Whether such Assignment was Equitable or Full, or

c) Whether such Assignment was allowed for or strictly prohibited within the terms and conditions of the alleged account, or

d) Whether the Claimant is in fact entitled to claim against the Defendant

For the assignment of any debt to be effective, and so giving the Claimant a right of action, a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on the defendant using a registered postal service pursuant to The Law of Property Act 1925 s196(4) before court action is commenced.

The Defendant therefore puts the Claimant to strict proof of the existence, content and correct and full delivery to the Defendant pursuant to The Law of Property Act 1925

s196(4) of a valid Notice of Assignment without which the Claimant has no right of action against the Defendant.

In the matter of 5)

The Defendant wishes to bring to the Court’s attention that he has never received any Default Notice regarding this alleged account.

The prescribed format for such document is laid down in the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended by the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

The Defendant respectfully brings to the Court’s attention that failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt.

The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice was:

a) sent to the Defendant,

b) received by the Defendant as the Law demands by way of the Claimant supplying to the Court proof of receipt by the Defendant, and

c) that any such Default Notice was lawful and valid, vis: that any such Default Notice was accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and included an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach.

 

In the matter of 6)

Despite offering to the Court no evidence of an agreement upon which to base their claim, the Claimant claims the sum of £xxxxxxx is owed by the Defendant on a Credit Card Account, together with interest under the County Courts Act 1984.

The Defendant has not used, nor applied to use, any Credit Card for approximately six years, and therefore any Credit Card owned by the Defendant would certainly be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 clearly lays down where a Claimant may not claim interest as follows:

2. — (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgment debt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remains unsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which the relevant judgment was given.

(2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgment debt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at a later date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date.

(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment—

(a) is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Notwithstanding that the Claimant has not produced, and has further stated themselves to be unable to produce any agreement to substantiate their claim against the Defendant, the Claimant has wrongfully claimed, and subsequently been awarded, interest on the amount claimed.

It is therefore the Defendant’s reasonable assumption that the Court, having been given sight of no evidence to substantiate their claim by the Claimant, will be willfully deceived as to the age, and therefore the eligibility, of the debt that the Claimant alleges the Defendant owes into wrongfully awarding that interest be payable by the Defendant.

Statement of Truth

 

 

I xxxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual to the best of my knowledge.

 

 

Signed ........................................................

 

(date)

[Rhia]

They are such plank-heads aren't they? They start cases all over the place without the paperwork - probably because they have got away with it for years...before we all started kicking off.

Then paying £300 like then when they had no intention of carrying on. Agree it was done to frighten you into settling. Reading the Judge's comments he was clearly unimpressed with them.

I'm surprised they haven't been listed as a vexatious litigant.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Update:

 

Sent a copy of the costs sheet to Morgans (which is what Cabots are calling their in-house solicitors this week ) and the Court.

Got the following replies back today:

 

From Morgans:

 

 

30th July 2009

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS OF THE DETAILED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO CPR 47.19

Thank you for your letter dated 15th July 2009, received at these offices on 17th July 2009.

In respect of your Bill of Costs, as you are aware this matter was allocated to the Small Claims Track. We therefore respectfully refer you to Civil Procedure Rule 38.6, in particular CPR 38.6(3) which states:-

38.6

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

(2) If proceedings are only partly discontinued-

(a) the claimant is liable under paragraph (a) for costs relating only to the part of the proceedings which he is discontinuing; and (b) unless the court orders otherwise, the costs which the claimant is liable to pay must not be assessed until the conclusion of the rest of the proceedings.

(3)This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.

We trust the above is self explanatory. We confirm we are now closing our file of papers.

OK, so is this right? wrong? More bullshizen? :-?

And from the Court, I recieved this in the same post, which strangley enough doesnt say "LotM aint entitled to costs cos it was in the Small Claims track"

Contents of Letter from Aylesbury CC dated 1st August 2009

Thank you for your papers, which were referred to District Judge XXXXXX. He gave the following comments:-

“LotMs proposed bill of costs needs to be served on Morgan Solicitors who need to inform him of any points of dispute.

If there aren’t any, he is entitled to apply in due course for a default costs certificate in the usual way.

If there are points of dispute he needs to seek to agree with Morgan how long the detailed assessment hearing is going to require.”

So... can anyone explain what I should do now please?

Cheers

Mo

[Rhia]

I honestly don't know. Need an expert here. My initial thought was to send them an invoice in some way. I will find that CAG case where they got costs off them. Perhaps it was Fast Track.

 

I agree they need holding to account here.

 

P.S. Just checked that case it was Fast Track!

 

P.P.S. HANG ON! Just re-read the court's letter. They say you can so go with the court. I wouldn't trust Cabot/Morgans/Hodsons if they said the sun rose each day!

 

Look at the link below points 2.8 and 2.9 on page 6 - it says you can claim for travelling costs and limited other costs.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/The%20courts%20small%20claims%20-%20written%20evidence.pdf

 

And a bit more digging it's here: Part 27.14 although it doesn't say anything about discontinuing I would put it together following these guidelines and let the court deal with them. I wouldn't be surprised if (g) doesn't come into play after all they have been unreasonable. Utter toerags!

PART 27 - THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK - Ministry of Justice

Edited August 5, 2009 by Rhia
add P.S.