Jump to content


Cabot/Mortimer claimform - old EGG card debt


fairbyblue
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1197 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

great.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 Procedurelink3.gif 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 creditlink3.gif 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

for sake of ref I've added their POC

 

 

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you did send a CCA to cabot?

nothing to do with PRA anymore

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
link3.gif
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.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

so what happened?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

good so case stayed

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...