Spamheed vs Cabot **discontinued**

[spamheed]

I did speak to someone at Morgan last week, agreed a 28 day extension, got the letter of confirmation yesterday and when I called the courts to find out the procedure I was advised of the above.

 

Not a happy bunny

[spamheed]

I think I'll be calling again tomorrow morning, I would rather take my time and really don't like the idea of being fobbed or misled by someone who should know better

[Brassed off]

Sorry Spamheed I didn't realise that. I rang the court but they didn't tell me that this was the procedure.

[spamheed]

BO, sorry to be a pain my friend but just to confirm,

 

Are you still at the inital stage of the claim and haven't posted any kind of defence yet?, also have you confirmed with the courts that your extension is in place and your date of submission correctly ammended?

 

The person (notice no more "lady") I spoke to said that there was "many a slip tween lip and cup" and that some claimants tried to play the system by forcing through default judgements even though the courts had been notified of extensions and that I would be best advised to post a defence asap

 

I would hate anyone to fall foul of such a cynical ploy, I will be calling them back tomorrow morning, but equally, I would ensure that it's me who's wrong

[Brassed off]

My case is still at NCCBC and I posted my defence online at the weekend. The extension date was today - two weeks after my defence was due. I'd better ring the court tomorrow and check with them regarding the extension being in place. Thanks for the info Spamheed. Nothing would really surprise me at the moment. Quite worried now.

[spamheed]

Sorry mate, not my intention, I would think you're right and I just got some huffy sort on a bad day

 

he maybe she doesn't like Geordies

[Brassed off]

Lol, let's hope that's the case!

[creditcardmug]

i think everyone can see its not worth filing a defence late and risking a default judgment, whatever the reasons might be

[spamheed]

That's the way I see it now, I have a doubt in my mind so i will try to sort out my defence for the weekend - I can still file a defence online?

 

BO, it's probably just an extension (excuse the pun) of the crap day i've had, i'm sure you're fine, but please double check for both our peace of mind and please let me know either way ;o)

[creditcardmug]

Yes you can file on line, as long as its not more than i think 7000 characters, someone else will confirm how many, heads gone now:rolleyes:

[Brassed off]

BO, it's probably just an extension (excuse the pun) of the crap day i've had, i'm sure you're fine, but please double check for both our peace of mind and please let me know either way ;o)

 

Lol. I will be double checking tomorrow and I'll let you know. Hope it all goes OK for you

[spamheed]

Just got off the telephone to the courts and another lady told me that the "lady" i spoke to on Monday was incorrect and the advice proffered was equally incorrect.

 

apparently It is down to the claimant whether a claim is proceeded with or issued against a defendant, the court will merely go along with whatever. if the claimant agree to an extension, then there is no requirement to even inform the courts of it, as the court will only act on the instruction of the claimant.

 

as such, apparently whether I inform the court of the agreement or not, if the claimant has agreed to an extension then that is sufficient. She wasn't clear on what would happen if the claimant agreed an extension and then decided to go for the default though.

 

BO, in all probability you have nothing to worry about, me, I'll be attempting to submit on or before my deadline

[gh2008]

If a claimant agrees (and you have evidence of the agreement) to an extended deadline for submitting the defence and then the claimant proceeds to apply for summary judgement before that date then the Court will have no issues with setting that judgement aside and ordering costs against the claimant.

 

Informing the Court of any agreed extension is sensible (and it is in CPR) it would also make an early application for SJ more difficult if the Court has confirmation of any extension on file.

 

I have not heard of a case where the claimants agreed an extension to the deadline defence and then applied early.

[spamheed]

As I said last night, I am more than confident what is being stated on here and on other forums is correct and what i was told on Monday was incorrect, but the experience has unbalanced my equilibrium a little. I have now decided on a plan of action which minimises any risk and will attempt to follow it.

 

On Monday morning I woke up with my plan of action sorted and clear, when I went to bed my heed was banging, coz I was being given conflicting information. I feel that time allowing I will get my defence in for Wednesday,

 

i am off work tomorrow so will attempt to have something at some point through the day.

[Brassed off]

I checked with the court today and they confirmed that as long as the Claimant had agreed to the extension and I have it in writing, that was fine. All they had on file was my telephone call stating that Morgans had agreed to the extension but they hadn't received the copy of the letter from Morgans I had sent them. They asked me to send it again as they needed something in writing on their file. Although she did say that NCCBC had a backlog at the moment.

 

I asked her about whether I had to fill in a form or pay a fee and she said she'd never heard of that!

 

Good job I took your advice and rang to check with them Spamheed - thank you

 

Surely they should have procedures written down somewhere in front of them so that conflicting advice can never be given out. It does make you wonder who trains the staff!

[spamheed]

I must confess the lady today did voice her concerns over the advice given and that although a consent order is a valid process, it would not have been applicable in this case. I did voice concerns similar to your own

 

Good to hear all is well with your defence BO

 

I'm still going to err on the side of caution and submit a defence (probably online) before the intial deadline

[Brassed off]

Thanks - you too!

 

A wise move filing online - they process it on the next working day. So would be Tuesday if you're doing it at the weekend and you don't need to send a copy to anyone - the court does it all for you

[gh2008]

They are not supposed to advise - even on procedure IIRC they should point you towards info leaflets and CPR

[JonCris]

Never ever trust the 'advice' of court staff at least not until you have checked & checked again

[Debtcontrol]

Hi Spamheed,

Going through exactly the same with with Morgans/Cabot at the minute.

 

 

• App form with no prescribed terms
  
• T&C from 2004, card taken out in 2000
  
• No Default Notice
  
• 'Representation' of supposed NOA sent with their response to initial defence
  
• NCC claim moved to local court
  
• Defence in with local court
  
• Received copy of Morgans AQ that asks for 1 month stay
  

Just waiting now on next step/move

 

Its amazing how many of us are going through the same. I'm looking into the whole Cabot UK / Europe thing just now, to see how important that is.

 

When I got Morgans reply to CPR 18 / 31 and my defence to NCC, they sent a copy of a 'representation' of a NOA and a load of copy statements from Cabot along with a Comms log.

I can't believe they want to pursue these, as I cannot see how they can be enforceable in their current state?

 

Should also mention that in their AQ to my local CC, they estimate their costs to be 5000 pounds!

 

I'm basing my defence on no Credit Agreement - App form that they have sent does not have any prescribed terms, no signature by them, no credit limit, no interest, no repayment terms and no charge info on missed payments etc.

Also, no default notice, no termination notice and no true copy of notice of assignment.

Also a letter from Morgans stating they do not have the documents I am asking for (Credit Agreement) so please stop asking.

 

Good luck - My link has copies of the N150 AQ etc (Post 44) to assist you if you need to look at one.

 

DC.

[spamheed]

I, xxxxx xxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Cabot (UK) Ltd

The Claimant states in their Particulars of Claim that a Loan with the Reference of 123456 is the basis of their claiming from the defendant the sum of £50xx.xx

The Defendant denies all allegations made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim in their entirety and puts the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim, inter alia:

The claimants' 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 Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or preceding the alleged cause of action.

 

b) No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim.

 

c) No particulars are offered in relation to the method the claimant has used to calculate any outstanding sums due, nor the nature and scope of any charges contained within the figure claimed, nor any default notices issued for the Claimant to have a legitimate right of action under the purported written Agreement or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim.

 

d) No copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the 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.

 

e) No copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has been served attached to the claim form.

 

f) The amount stated on the claim includes an amount of PPI which is confirmed on the alleged documentation supplied by the claimant as well as interest applied on this amount, yet it does not demonstrate how, when or where the PPI has been agreed to or signed for, nor does it include any terms and conditions for this amount - therefore the accuracy of the amount stated in the claim is doubted and the defendant places the claimant under strict proof on the accuracy of the amount claimed.

 

g) The claimant states in their letter dated xx October xxxx that they have bought the account and the Claimants solicitors alson state in their letter dated xx August xxxx that they have purchased the debt in an absolute assignment yet the the letter before action received from the clients solicitors on xx July xxxx states that Egg is the creditor and not Cabot, yet the named creditor has not joined in this claim.

 

h) Furthermore the Claimant has to date failed to provide the Defendant with any legitimate evidence to substantiates their claim of ownership.

 

i) In the Particulars of Claim Interest is claimed under s69 County Courts Act 1984. Yet it clearly states in S69 County Courts Act (4) that “Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs” Neither is there within the Terms and Conditions of the alleged agreement any allowance to apply such an amount of interest to this account after termination.

 

j) Consequently due to the Claimants failure to supply the documents required under the Civil Procedure Rules and the fact that the Claimant has failed to sufficiently particularise the claim I deny all allegations in Particulars of Claim that I am indebted to the Claimant in any way and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

The build up to this action

 

On the xx October xxxx I received a letter from Cabot stating that they had bought an account from Egg Bank identified in the letter by a Cabot reference of 123456 and an alleged account number of abcdefg In the same envelope there was also a copy of a letter allegedly from Egg and bearing the Egg logo, but clearly created by the same hand as the letter received from Cabot, this letter also referred to the account number abcdefg. I wrote to Cabot advising of an existing dispute over an account with Egg bank and sought clarification via documentary verification of their claim of ownership and requested a copy of the Credit Agreement pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Cabot responded on the 11th November 2009 by providing an alleged agreement which did not contain the account number abcdefg but onto which the number 123456 had been hand written. The alleged agreement did not contain all of the required prescribed terms required under statute and precedent and as the front page differed significantly from the signature page in both form and content, I doubted the authenticity of this document.

I wrote to Cabot stating that the references on the alleged agreement did not correspond with those in their communications and that the letter purporting to come from Egg bank had clearly been created by themselves in breach of s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

I also advised Cabot that the documentation supplied did not comply with the requirements of the CCA 1974 and that as it stood the document was not an enforceable credit agreement and further requested that they supply the required documents. Cabot wrote back claiming the document supplied was a valid Consumer Credit Agreement under the 1974 Act and that the Letter dated xx October xxxx was in fact a Notice of assignment.

Between the dates xx December xxxx and the xx June xxxx I requested on no less than five occasions that Cabot substantiate their claims of ownership of this account and that they provide legitimate documentary proof of such ownership.

On xx July xxxx I received a letter from Morgan solicitors advising me of their intention to litigate. Shortly afterwards I received the court claim form.

 

The Request For Disclosure

Further to the case, on the xx August xxxxI requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the CPR 31.14 and CPR part 18 which is vital to this case from the claimant , The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim and any Default or Termination Notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any Default Notices or Termination Notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.

The claimant has replied by providing the Defendant with a copy of the same document as stated in point x, the reference as stated in the Particulars of Claim was again hand written on the signature page of the documentation provided. An alleged redacted copy of the Deed of assignment was supplied from which it is impossible to determine anything of merit and which cannot be in any way connected to either the Defendant , not to the alleged agreement as provided by the Claimant, A redacted account history was also provided, but this again serves no purpose in confirming the claimants cause for action or right to bring such action.

Conclusion

The overriding objective in CPR 1.1(2) requires the court to, as far as possible, place the parties on an equal footing. The fact that the Claimants have in their possession a document which is determinative of one the major issues as between the parties should in my submission require disclosure to enable the Defendant to form a view as to whether there has been a lawful assignment. It is with respect the position that not only do the interests of justice require disclosure but that the Claimant cannot prove its case without producing the alleged Deed of Assignment to the Defendant. If, which is not admitted, there was an agreement, enforceable or otherwise, in existence the Claimant has not proved that there has been a lawful assignment.

Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to assess if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16.

 

Edited August 26, 2010 by spamheed

[spamheed]

This time with paragraphs numbered and minor amendments to content

 

Any comments would be appreciated

1. I, xxxxx xxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Cabot (UK) Ltd

2. The Claimant states in their Particulars of Claim that a Loan with the Reference of 123456 is the basis of their claiming from the defendant the sum of £50xx.xx

3. The Defendant denies all allegations made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim in their entirety and puts the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

4. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim, inter alia:

5. The claimants' 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.

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

 

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

b) No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim.

c) No particulars are offered in relation to the method the claimant has used to calculate any outstanding sums due, nor the nature and scope of any charges contained within the figure claimed, nor any default notices issued for the Claimant to have a legitimate right of action under the purported written Agreement or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim.

d) No copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the 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.

e) No copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has been served attached to the claim form.

f) The amount stated on the claim appears to include an amount of Loan Protection Insurance which is confirmed on the documentation supplied by the claimant ,as well as interest applied on this amount, yet the documentation does not demonstrate how, when or where the PPI was agreed to or signed for, nor does it include any terms and conditions for this amount - therefore the accuracy of the amount stated in the claim is doubted and the defendant places the claimant under strict proof on the accuracy of the amount claimed.

g) The claimant states in a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx that they “bought” the account. The Claimants solicitor also state in a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx that they own the debt due to an absolute assignment, yet in the letter before action received on xx/xx/xxxx clearly states that Egg is the creditor, yet the named creditor has not joined in this claim.

h) Furthermore the Claimant has to date failed to provide the Defendant with any legitimate evidence to substantiates their claim of ownership.

i) In the Particulars of Claim, Interest is claimed under s69 County Courts Act 1984. Yet it clearly states in S69 County Courts Act (4) that “Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs” and since within the Terms and Conditions of the documentation provided there is no provision to apply such interest to this account after termination, it is therefore unclear on what basis this claim is made.

j) Consequently due to the Claimants failure to supply the documents required under the Civil Procedure Rules and the fact that the Claimant has failed to sufficiently particularise the claim I deny all allegations in Particulars of Claim that I am indebted to the Claimant in any way and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

The build up to this action

7. On the xx/xx/xxxx I received a letter from Cabot stating that they had bought an account from Egg Bank identified in the letter by a Cabot reference of 123456 and an alleged account number of abcdefg. In the same envelope there was also a copy of a letter allegedly from Egg and bearing the Egg logo, but clearly created by the same hand as the letter received from Cabot, this letter also referred to the account number abcdefg. I wrote to Cabot advising of an existing dispute over an account with Egg bank and sought clarification via documentary verification of their claim of ownership and requested a copy of the Credit Agreement pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

8. Cabot responded on the xx/xx/xxxx by providing an alleged agreement which did not contain the account number abcdefg but onto which the number 123456 had been hand written. The alleged agreement did not contain all of the required prescribed terms required under statute and precedent and as the front page differed significantly from the signature page in both form and content, I doubted the authenticity of this document.

9. I wrote to Cabot stating that the references on the alleged agreement did not correspond with those in their communications and that the letter purporting to come from Egg bank had clearly been created by themselves in breach of s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

10. I also advised Cabot that the documentation supplied did not comply with the requirements of the CCA 1974 and that as it stood the document was not an enforceable credit agreement and further requested that they supply the required documents. Cabot wrote back claiming the document supplied was a valid Consumer Credit Agreement under the 1974 Act and that the Letter dated xx/xx/xxxx was in fact a Notice of assignment.

11. Between the dates xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxxx I requested on no less than five occasions that Cabot substantiate their claims of ownership of this account and that they provide legitimate documentary proof of such ownership and liability

12. On xx/xx/xxxx I received a letter from Morgan solicitors advising me of their intention to litigate. Shortly afterwards I received the court claim form.

The Request For Disclosure

13. Further to the case, on the xx/xx/xxxx I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the CPR 31.14 and CPR part 18 which is vital to this case from the claimant , The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim and any Default or Termination Notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made to the original creditor and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on.

14. The claimant has replied by providing the Defendant with a copy of the same document as stated in point 8, the reference as stated in the Particulars of Claim was again hand written on the signature page of this document. A redacted copy of the alleged Deed of Assignment was supplied with no information visible. A redacted account history was also provided which serves no purpose in confirming the claimants claims

Conclusion

15. The overriding objective in CPR 1.1(2) requires the court to, as far as possible, place the parties on an equal footing. The fact that the Claimants have in their possession a document which is determinative of one the major issues as between the parties should in my submission require disclosure to enable the Defendant to form a view as to whether there has been a lawful assignment. It is with respect the position that not only do the interests of justice require disclosure but that the Claimant cannot prove its case without producing the alleged Deed of Assignment to the Defendant. If, which is not admitted, there was an agreement, enforceable or otherwise, in existence the Claimant has not proved that there has been a lawful assignment.

16. Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to assess if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974

In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16

[spamheed]

Duplicate post

Edited August 26, 2010 by spamheed
duplicate post

[gh2008]

How can you be embarrassed and yet still plead a complete denial ...... IMHO it has to be one or the other

[creditcardmug]

How can you be embarrassed and yet still plead a complete denial ...... IMHO it has to be one or the other

 

Its just legal speak, basically meaning their POC is so vague that you are unable to plead effectively or at all...doesnt mean it in the sense we all know it as