Cabot/Mortimer claimform - old EGG card debt

[dx100uk]

great.

 

 

dx

[fairbyblue]

Thanks so much for your help, it's really appreciated, cheers

[fairbyblue]

This is reply from solicitors -

 

Further to your letter dated XXX

we are taking our clients instruction in relation to your request and will come back to you as soon as we can.

 

We confirm out client is willing to agree an extension of 28 days, for you to file your defence, pursuant CPR 15.5(2) please notify the court of the agreement.

 

For clarification,

the particulars of claim refered to agreement between you and Prime Credit S.A.R.L.

We have been informed by our client that the original creditor is Lloyds Bank.

This does not affect your liability to repay the outstanding balance to our client.

 

It would be possible for our client to seek to formally amend the particulars of claim: however we do not propose to do this.

We suggest that the parties focus on addressing the outstanding balance rather that procedural aspects.

If you take a different view, please let us know, and provide your consent fr our client to file and serve amended particulars of claim.

 

If you position has changed in view of the above,please let us know in 7 days the precise legal basis.

yours faithfully

Mortimer Clarke

 

 

So what do I do now.

 

 

My thoughts are they lulling me into complacency to file a defence after the time limit so the get judgement by default?

 

 

The POC is utter tosh. they want me to enter agreement to pay or consent to serve amended POC (I aint consenting anything!)

 

So do I file a defence saying I do not recognise this poc.

 

Thanks

[nunnyrose]

sorry, just reading through this thread and unless I've missed something, why are Lloyds the original creditor? I thought this was an Egg ???

[dx100uk]

rightly or wrongly the OP assumed it was an egg card.

 

 

matters not really

this is why they sell things around to confuse defendants when they do try to sneak these debts through court

hoping for an undefended default judgement.

 

 

you stick to your timeline and file the holding defence on time regardless!!

[fairbyblue]

sorry, just reading through this thread and unless I've missed something, why are Lloyds the original creditor? I thought this was an Egg ???

That's what I thought as well, I have apex letter from 2009 with same amount and its egg card. So did lloyds take over egg?

[fairbyblue]

Thanks dx100uk, is there a link for holding defence, I have not received anything from Cabot re the cca request

[dx100uk]

plenty of threads here and the successes forum with the outline

of how it should look and what you need to adapt.

 

 

you've a wee while yet.

 

 

by 4pm 1st may

 

 

don't forget post here with it before filing

[fairbyblue]

Hi, brilliant you're a star. I will have a good look around and maybe get a good nights sleep !

[fairbyblue]

1. By agreement between PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) and the Defendant on or around 5/1/02 (The agreement)

PRC agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card upon the terms and conditions set out theirin,

2.In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to make minimum payments due and the agreement was terminated.

3.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.

The claimant therefore claims £2.5k

 

 

Is this ok for the holding defence?

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by CPR 31.14 and a Section 78 request.

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

4. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

5. On the 16th March 2015 I made a legal request by way of a section 78 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has not yet produced the requested documents therefore I am currently unable to fully defend this claim.

 

6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

 

 

I sent my CPR to Cabot but the claimant looks like Prime credit S.a.r.l (prc) would I have to amend as I ve sent nothing to prime credit and in fact I don't know who they are. I ve had nothing of cabot anyway.

 

 

This has to be submitted buy 1/5/15, thanks

[dx100uk]

for sake of ref I've added their POC

 

 

is that ALL there is on the claimform and its exact wording ??

[dx100uk]

you did send a CCA to cabot?

nothing to do with PRA anymore

[fairbyblue]

Exact wording in claim form (will put exact amount on)as referenced, Cca went to Cabot in March 2015. Never contacted PRA.

[AndyOrch]

Paragraph 1 of the claimants particulars does not state that you owe any monies.....

 

 

1. By agreement between PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) and the Defendant on or around 5/1/02 (The agreement) PRC agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card upon the terms and conditions set out theirin,

 

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by CPR 31.14 and a Section 78 request.

 

You need to respond to theirs points 1/2/3.

 

Andy

[fairbyblue]

is this better? The sec 78 went to cabot in march, solicitors replied to my CPR saying the claimant is Lloyds, which is wrong and they admit in this letter that the poc should read Lloyds and want me to agree to change, dunno if that relevant

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1. By agreement between PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) and the Defendant on or around 5/1/02 (The agreement)

PRC agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card upon the terms and conditions set out theirin,

 

 

2.In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to make minimum payments due and the agreement was terminated.

 

 

3.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.

 

 

The claimant therefore claims £2.5k

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

 

1. It is denied with regards to the defendant entering into an agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim (‘the Agreement’)I have no knowledge of who PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) are or ever had any contractual relationship with.

On receipt of the

claim form

the Defendant made request under CPR 31.14 for a copies of the credit agreement, Notice of Assignment and a statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached, to the claimant's solicitors.

 

The claimant's solicitors have yet to comply.

 

2.Paragraph 2 is denied as I'm unaware or ever had any agreement with PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) to enable any breach.

 

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC); and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

 

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for a copy of the agreement under section 78 of the CCA1974 that it relies upon they are prevented from enforcing or requesting any relief as pursuant to the CCA 1974.

 

 

4 By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Should be ok now I've edited your last post.

[fairbyblue]

Yep it does sound 100% better. Thank you for your fantastic help

[AndyOrch]

With regards to your other point......

 

The sec 78 went to cabot in march, solicitors replied to my CPR saying the claimant is Lloyds, which is wrong and they admit in this letter that the POC should read Lloyd's and want me to agree to change, dunno if that relevant

 

The claimant requires your agreement and the courts to change details of the particulars.......this may happen after you have you have submitted your defence.

[fairbyblue]

so what happens now? I don't want to agree to amend. do I just get a letter for a hearing now?

[AndyOrch]

Just submit your defence....that's a problem for them to resolve.....if they do amend the particulars you may have to submit an amended defence.....just so you are aware.

[fairbyblue]

Ok brill, no need to worry unless something to worry about.

[dx100uk]

so what happened?

[fairbyblue]

Not heard anything since so it must of worked !

[dx100uk]

good so case stayed