Cabot/Morgan & My Monument card case

[sir fussalot]

H.B. hiya.

 

Yes I CPR'd them (Post No 1 ) guess what........... Nothing

 

If I get time later, I will do a "Summary", of where I'm upto;

 

I thought it would look goood to Mr Judge.

 

Cpr........ Nothing but as in post number 1

D.N........ Don't need to

T&C's.....Different to T&c's sent by Cabrot in April.( the seperate bit about "I have read section 22" featured in Post Number 56; is.... refers to Data protection Act, in the one "purported" T&C's, and in the other lot it refers to a section on "Customer Concerns";

 

So now I have CCA'd them as well (seperate offence non compliance ?)

(( unless they do not need to respond as it has started a CCJ application))....

 

s.f.

Edited November 10, 2009 by sir fussalot

[hungrybear]

I'm sure you're up to speed with this fussy:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

but just in case, it might help.

 

I STILL come back to no DN = no court case AND no agreement = no leg to stand on anyway.

 

I suspect we'll see a lot more cases like this over the mext few months whilst cabot bust themselves trying to recoup their loses

[hungrybear]

some more stuff to stick in their tailpipe:

 

For a creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated credit agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) CCA 1974 which states

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,-

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e)to enforce any security.

 

and

 

I suggest that since the claimant has not complied with the requirements to issue a valid default notice, the claimant should not be bringing this action before the court until the procedure set out for the protection of consumers has been followed. It is noted that the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) require strict compliance and clearly indicates in the wording that substantial compliance is not enough.

 

 

'lifted' from here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/212996-car-finance-agreement-2.html#post2360714

[sir fussalot]

H.B.

 

Yes totally agree with you regarding the "trickle before the flood" as regards to these "agreements".

 

As reported recently, with the huge profit situation as per the banks. one minute needing vast amounts to stay afloat and save our whole ecconomic structure, then within 18 month's able to pay all the bonus's.

Call me a bitter ,twisted, jealous old cynic , But 'twas just greed and arrogance that have put them in this position. and as they had the opinion that the Law (CCA), was something that they didn't need to worry too much over" mere details", as they set the agenda with THEIR CONTRACT TERMS, then, they deserve to be bought to account(no pun intended).. But, as NOT wishing to tarnish their image and "writing off" these Dodgey Debts.(No doubt for more TAX efficient accounting).

They happily let the "Hyena's of the Financial Jungle", do their bit, abandoning their former customers to their fate.

 

Sorry H.B. I don't know where that rant came from, But by Gad I feel a lot better!!!

 

s.f.

Edited November 11, 2009 by sir fussalot

[sir fussalot]

H.B.

 

The only thing, If I send all my points to Cabrot. and they "reconsider" and decide not to pursue it.....

 

What happens if at a later date some OFT or Legal ruling comes up more in their favour.?

It has to go to court now in order to "Kill It", surely...

 

s.f.

[hungrybear]

Two things,

 

appreciate what you say but it's not possible to retrospectively repeal statute - well technically it is but that's what the EU courst are for

 

and

 

Feeling very happy today - I got a laugh-o-gram from wescot for a debt so old i'd forgotten about it.

 

Being a Yorkshireman, I'd prefer court just for the off chance of costs!

 

 

And yes I'm VERY ashamed that the taxman has had to foot the bill for my RBS credit card

[sir fussalot]

H.B.

 

Must be the start of something BIG

 

Wesclot usually HUFF and PUFF for about 4 or 6 letters, then pass it on

 

Have Fun!

[hungrybear]

 

Wesclot usually HUFF and PUFF for about 4 or 6 letters, then pass it on

 

Have Fun!

 

 

they'll have a job they 'own' it. seems rbs needed 50 quid towards some bloke called fred's pension payment!

[sir fussalot]

H.B.

 

Yes I'm sure we have ALL bought things that on reflection we shouldn't have :grin:

 

I wonder if they take it back, they'll exchange it.... NO,

 

They don't understand the CCA 1974 .:D:D

 

 

sirfuss

[sir fussalot]

Hiyall,......

 

AM I CORRECT.?

 

The progress in this case so far, is that I have had the Summons from Northampton.

 

Filed my Aknowledgement.; notified of a Defence;. C.P.R.'d their solicitors. Transferred to Local C.C.

Filled in Witness Statement, with Draft Order for Disclosure

 

Their solicitors have; sent

Application Form for Agreement.

12 unconsistent statements.

No D.N. (claim that they don't need one, as only collecting "arrears")

Told me Assignment letter will take a week. (that was 4th Oct)still NO sign.

THEN, on the 20th Oct, (special Delivery) I sent £1 P.O. for C.C.A.

No REply..

 

SO, can I now write and tell them they are in breach of the CCA request.

 

AND would that mean that as they are in breach and the account would be in "DISPUTE", and that as such they couldn't take the case any further.

 

Comments please Anyone.

 

Sir Fussalot

 

 

 

 

 

.

[hungrybear]

Hiya fussy,

 

why did you cca after cpr? CPR should give you anything.

 

And no a section 78(6) dispute does not prevent court action - in fact only a judge can remove the dispute.

 

No DN = cannot take you to court

 

No Assignment = no proof they have the right to collect or take you to court.

 

No agreement = nothing to default on and nothing to assign.

 

BTW I THINK they/you will find that the only first remedy available to collect arrears is a DN - that is what it is for. Caution, your agreement is in default because it is in arrears, kindly remedy within 14 (or more) days or we may....

 

What they are trying to do is terminate without defaulting you.

[sir fussalot]

Hiya Hungry....

 

Hope you have had a good week.

 

I cca'd em as I had only asked for a CPR and thought that as I hadn't asked for a CCA, which I know would have put the a/c into dispute, they may have been able to use it to their advantage. I take it this was incorrect.?

 

(incidently, to see if a postal order has been cashed, you have to write in to the P.O. ,with the number and they will tell you. (theres a point, they should send it back if they havn't complied...)

 

ANYWAY;

 

This A.M. I was having a "Rumage Thro'".

 

(your comments about the D.N. etc could have "may" in their intended action, well it got me worried.) , especially when I discovered that you were quite correct. (very much obligued.)

 

Well, I have now found 2 nice letters.

 

One. being called a Default Notice. (that turns out to be NOT correctly done!!)

 

And the one that had me worried, with Morgans saying they only wanted arrears.. "accordingly your credit account is now closed".. Phew..

 

I will post 'em up later.

 

Cheerio Now.. fussa:-)

Edited November 15, 2009 by sir fussalot

[sir fussalot]

Here's part TWO of the Default Notice.(sorry I put 'em in the wrong way round)

 

Edited November 16, 2009 by sir fussalot

[sir fussalot]

This is the one that came with it.

 

Edited November 16, 2009 by sir fussalot

[sir fussalot]

AND the Closed account letter..

 

[hungrybear]

fussy - you need to get someone from the site team to look at these. Look through a few threads and seek out 42man, supasnooper or cerbusealot or someone similar and PM them with a link to this thread asking them to have a look specifically at those three documents.

 

From what I can see the MOST they are entitled to is £150. I am pretty sure this constitutes unlawful rescission - but it's your neck on the line not mine so I urge you to consult more experienced caggers.

[BeauBrummie]

Hi Sirfussalot,

 

I have exactly the same DN and accompanying letter but just a few months earlier and posed a similar question regarding the "closure" see this post 139 & 140 :

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/144167-bb-cabot-7.html#post2566980

 

If it is any help??

 

Beau

[sir fussalot]

Heres one on Unlawful Rescission.. by Vint1954

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/220555-credit-card-sar-only.html

[sir fussalot]

Hungry...

 

Just "Googled" the unlawful rescission. and had a squint at Beau Brummies.

 

NOW I am confused

 

If as appears, they have not given me enough time on the D.N. note;

 

AND... the amounts were wrongly stated. due to "unlawful charges".

 

They therefore closed the A/C by "Unlawful Rescission".

 

Does that mean that..... the debt stays "still", but still exist's. although unenforcible..

 

Although, they have a "Good" claim only for the ARREARS, BUT....

 

As there is NO AGREEMENT....(only an APPLICATION FORM). there is NO DEBT.....

.:confused:

 

AARRRGGHHH........... Help.

 

fussalot

[sir fussalot]

Beau Brum.....

 

Did they mention anything Specific about your D. N. at the court.?

 

Fussy

[BeauBrummie]

Beau Brum.....

 

Did they mention anything Specific about your D. N. at the court.?

 

Fussy

 

Sorry ----I did not get the chance--but maybe it is for another day when I can get my head round this McGuffick ruling:???:

 

Beau

[sir fussalot]

B.B.

 

Have you seen the post on the Mitchel case ?#

 

# If not Google it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

fuss

[BeauBrummie]

Hi sirfussalot,

 

I thank you for the info, did you mean this judgment?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/230455-new-argument-unenforceability.html#post2553057

 

If so then it is my belief that this supercedes it

 

Couple lose £40,000 write-off fight - AOL Money

 

I have since been racking my brains as to the validity of an appeal and have now ran out of time:(, so I need another form of attack.

 

Thanks

 

Beau

[sir fussalot]

Hiya B.B.

 

I have read the last link. I think that I can see the point to their (Appeal Judges) thinking.

 

IMHO they did "borrow" the brokers fee by not paying that up front then, Although it was "disjointed" in the agreement it was still to be included.. unfortunatley...

 

s.f.

 

P.S. have you got a C.C.J. in your case. ? i.e. is it still outstanding.

[hungrybear]

Hungry...

 

Just "Googled" the unlawful rescission. and had a squint at Beau Brummies.

 

NOW I am confused

 

If as appears, they have not given me enough time on the D.N. note;

 

AND... the amounts were wrongly stated. due to "unlawful charges".

 

They therefore closed the A/C by "Unlawful Rescission".

 

Does that mean that..... the debt stays "still", but still exist's. although unenforcible..

 

Although, they have a "Good" claim only for the ARREARS, BUT....

 

As there is NO AGREEMENT....(only an APPLICATION FORM). there is NO DEBT.....

.:confused:

 

AARRRGGHHH........... Help.

 

fussalot

 

no agreement = no enforceable debt

 

IF they were to come up with an enforceable agreement within 6 years of your last acknowledgment of the debt

 

then unlawful rescission = only liable for the arrears.