Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Court Papers arrived - DebtControl V Cabot/MSDW


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4868 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

Hello,

 

Its been a while since I have been on here but I have great news that hopefully provides encouragement to anyone else in a similar position...

 

After taking advice from someone on these forums, I admitted that the task in this particular case was greater than a LIP could bring home so I instructed the services of a solicitor firm. I wont say which one, but it is well known on these forums. After paying initially to have my defence amended to get it in a good state, I went onto a no win no fee basis (CFA) to defend my case.

 

My defence was amended, points picked up that I would never have got and a Witness Statement produced that took to task Cabot on several matters.

 

Today was the trial date. My solicitor had instructed counsel from a well known chambers and we went up against Cabot & their counsel. Whilst Cabot succeeded in introducing a 3rd set of T&Cs relating to my account since the claim began, our argument remained on the legibility of the agreement, the relation to the T&Cs and the notice of assignment / sales agreement validity.

 

To summarise these points, the agreement was not easily legible, the notice of assignment was sent on Barclaycard letterhead then on Cabot letterhead and the agreement could not be confirmed to be related to any set of T&Cs due to the non legibility of both. There was also the point on whether Cabot had produced evidence that my account was assigned to them in a bulk sale.

 

The Judge agreed that my account was in the bulk sale but then laid into Cabot on the legibility issues and the whole NoA and T&Cs. She even went as far to say that there was not one point at fault in their case, but 3 and they were nowhere near acceptable to satisfy s78(1).

 

Therefore my case was dismissed and Cabot have had another kicking!

 

I haven't been keeping the case updated due to advice of my solicitor and I can see his point entirely.

 

Cabot have now had my 5k debt ruled un-enforcable and have to pay 6k in solicitor & barrister costs! Result!

 

 

 

What I learned from this experience:

  • If in any doubt, instruct solicitors as early as possible. I didn't and had to pay several hundred pounds to get my case into a state that had a chance of success and also to be considered for a CFA (Conditional Fee Arrangement - no win, no fee).
  • Understand your case completely. Even though my solictor was brilliant and built my defence / WS, its your case, your name on the claim and you will be cross examined by their Barrister whilst on the stand under oath. Granted its not a totally gruelling experience but these are experienced in their trade and use every skill available to them when you are on the stand to prise something out of you that can be used as ammunition against you.
  • Know the rules / law. Cabot introduced new evidence at a regular frequency when it suited them, once even in direct relation to an argument in our submitted defence. Whilst this is crap as really they should have all the facts before bringing the case, judgement in another case confirmed that the claimant can introduce documents/evidence whenever they want up to point of judgement. However, this ultimately count against them as they seriously lost credibility in the eyes of the Judge today I believe, due to the NoA issues and the T&Cs changing all of the time.
  • If you are going it alone, explore all possibilities and go on the offense against the claimant. Its not enough to rely on a dodgy agreement I believe, this is what I have picked up from solicitors and barrister - in my case the claimants were arguing that the agreement plus the T&Cs constituted a valid satisfaction of S78(1) - if they were legible they might have had a stronger case as it appears there is case law to support this, fortunately for me the Judge wasn't satisfied in the legibity in either, therefore ruled they could not be confirmed as linked. Also do not take anything the DCA states as the truth - they produced 3 sets of T&Cs in my case once the claim had begun, each time saying these were correct. My barrister really went for this and when Cabot's legal guy was on the stand, put him to task asking if he could certify that these were indeed correct given the history and the manner in which they were produced - in an email from another person / company who are the current administration company for MSDW accounts. He could only answer 'To the best of my knowledge', thats not enough fortunately, theres case law supporting the 'certified' stance. Also, Cabot produced the 2nd set of T&C that were for Standard & Platinum cards - mine was a Gold card. You have to attack this whilst clearly setting out the issues with it. We did this in the defence and they rectified it a week before trial with the 3rd set, but it was still really valid as it shown the Judge the manner in which Cabot were bringing their case.
  • If you are going it alone, understand case law, the acts you are going to rely on and also understand the cases where your points were ruled against in parts so you can have an argument ready for this. These circumstances all occurred today but I was fortunate to have a solicitor with over 5 years of experience in CCA law and a great barrister who were able to argue on the same level. Its safe to say that the final 30 mins of my trial was above my head, it was all case law, section references and rulings.
  • Its not really enough to continue down the 'I have no knowledge of this debt' stance anymore, I picked this up from the solicitors & barristers. I admitted I took the card out and used the service. I pleaded I ran into financial difficulty then when further in difficulties sought to confirm Cabot's legal right to collect on my debt. This apparently is seen far more favourably by the Judge in considering the situation. Of course that is down to the Judge perhaps.
  • Know how to plead your case, everyone is different and should be tailored on the merits of yours - embarrased defences that then set out the reasons why but then go into great detail around what they should have done giving case law etc won't cut it - you have to go on the offensive and put the claimant to strict proof using the CPR routes available to you, then include that in your defense outlining why the case should be struck out if non compliance occurs. This was something said to me by my solictor from his experience in defandants picking up skeleton arguments from forums and not dealing with the particular issues in each unique case. If in doubt, seek advice. I personally believe these forums are a great service to us all, I would not have won today without them, but I can see the point that its dangerous to pick up a template from a thread and use it in your case when some points may just not apply - it will be picked apart from the claimant in court.

The above said, my solicitor and barrister were always confident about the S78(1) argument in this case, however Cabot could have produced a legible agreement on us 5 mins before the trial began - granted we would have went for an adjourment to consider our position, but it was always in the back of my mind the past few weeks given the way Cabot seem to do business.

 

I got a great result today though, and its worthwhile pointing out that Cabot were always up against it with an agreement that was not 'easily legible'. I'm over the moon and feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Plus Cabot got a real kicking from the judge, and I understand its not the first time this month, so they have to be shaken I hope and perhaps will reassess the way they do business? I'm not holding my breath though!

 

I've rambled on a bit now, sorry. I have probably missed something important out too, so please, anyone, feel free to get in touch and ask away. I've only been through this once now but hope to use my experience to assist others.

The advice I have given above may not be agreed on by everyone, it is my own advice based on my experience and conversations with people in the legal profession. Its not meant to give anyone false hope or indeed deter anyone from any actions, I am just trying to be as honest and truthful as possible.

 

Mods, please feel free to move to Legal Successes.

 

Thanks,

DC.

 

Hi

Congratulations.

 

Sounds like you had no shortage of ammunition.

 

I take it the agreement was found to be unenforceable under section 127(3) is that correct.

 

Love to see a transcript of the judgment.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

:-)

 

Yes i would just for clarity you understand.

Is this a case of unenforceabiltiy or was it thrown out because of none assignment or temporary unenforceabilty due to a section78 breach and if so why wasnt this remedied by just copying the details onto anther document.

I am not trying to infer anything here i assure you just trying to get clarification.

 

Surely the judge would have had to give specific reasons for the judgement wouldnt he/she.

 

Peter:?:

Edited by Dodgeball
To many peters

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i would just for clarity you understand.

Is this a case of unenforceabiltiy or was it thrown out because of none assignment or temporary unenforceabilty due to a section78 breach and if so why wasnt this remedied by just copying the details onto anther document.

I am not trying to infer anything here i assure you just trying to get clarification.

 

Surely the judge would have had to give specific reasons for the judgement wouldnt he/she.

 

Peter:?:

 

yes, i think i understand! ie get the full details, try and dissect them for anything that will negate a positive result, and then post back to your 'pals' so that they are forewarned? :-)

imo

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i think i understand! ie get the full details, try and dissect them for anything that will negate a positive result, and then post back to your 'pals' so that they are forewarned? :-)

imo

 

:lol:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i think i understand! ie get the full details, try and dissect them for anything that will negate a positive result, and then post back to your 'pals' so that they are forewarned? :-)

imo

 

IMO it would be helpful to see the judgement so that others may dissect them to give more positive results for others.

 

Your innuendo's are not helpful.

 

This thread has been closed once, and will be closed again if people can't stick to the topic.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With this case, it was County Court, therefore no transcribers in Court. so it would be for the parties to have the case transcribed, which i am considering doing. However, everytime i post a judgment, the Phoenix judgment in the other case (not Kotecha) but the other one we did, then i come under fire

 

whats the point?

 

What's the point in posting about it if you aren't going to, then, Paul? If it's County Court, it won't be binding, anyway? Am I missing something?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well IMHO

if you were to post it up

 

then we then close the thread

 

its complete

 

others can use it

 

that is what cag is about helping OTHERS.

 

there have been to many cases of recent that have a start no middle and a won....

what purpose does that serve to others reading cag for help?

 

go employ a solicitor, its the only way?

 

not being funny but this kind of thing needs to stop.

 

dx

siteteam.

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

well then Car, there is no point then in posting or discussing the merits further is there if thats your view then i shall keep my views to myself.

 

Just one point, while not binding, it is of course persuasive due to the fact that it is desirable for courts to be consistent in their judgments providing they are right of course.

 

I think you've missed my point, there. I'm meaning what is the point in posting bits and pieces about it if we can't see the full judgment and discuss it, etc. I think this is what Peter was meaning, earlier, also. If there's no judgment, it's all conjecture and posturing, whereas I'm more interested in learning and helping others along the way.

 

Jumping to the defensive means you felt under attack? Sorry, buddy, you know what I'm like, just say what I'm thinking - and it sometimes doesn't make sense, or mean what I meant to mean. (If you know what I mean :dance:)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well IMHO

if you were to post it up

 

then we then close the thread

 

its complete

 

others can use it

 

that is what cag is about helping OTHERS.

 

there have been to many cases of recent that have a start no middle and a won....

what purpose does that serve to others reading cag for help?

 

go employ a solicitor, its the only way?

 

not being funny but this kind of thing needs to stop.

 

dx

siteteam.

 

DX,

 

I think that you need to remember that, if a person so decides to post the details of their case then that is entirely their call. I would love to post up more of the info that i have at my finger tips, as i am sure it would assist the wider audience, but there is such a thing as client confidentiality and when a client says please do not release this information then it is not something that can be discussed openly.

 

And to point out that also, i posted the Kotecha judgment on here when it first came out and got abuse thrown at me,

 

I have offered to share the info that has been used successfully, and my post promptly got moderated without reason,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets try to remember,that those who come here in the first place have absolutely no problems posting details of their issues.

The problems experienced in finding out more later,seem to be out of consequence of their case being taken off the site.

Irrespective of who contacts who,or what arrangements are made,the bottom line is that they came to this site in the first place.

Given the ethos and purpose of the CAG,its not unreasonable then that members less privvy and unconnected to any legal business,are quite right to expect to know whats gone on,and have some answers.

To deny the wider members this,is inviting the questions and suggestions that we have seen.

This is a free site,and the reasons most are here is because it IS supposed to be free.

Make out of that what you choose,but I am bringing this up because it needs to be remembered,and also in consideration of concerns by many that the CAG should not be reliant on anything less than what it was set up to do-and those who came here on those expectations.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Flippin eck

I just asked for a more detailed description of a case,dont see how we can use any"positive information" gained from this win if we arnt told what it is.

 

I really cant see the point in posting at all if you are not willing to discuss.

 

I dont know about anyone else but if this was won i want to know how it was won, what grounds are proven to be sucessful by this case.

 

From the discription given it seems like the judge threw his hands up and said i am really fed up of you Cabot lot so i am not going to let yhou have your money back and whats more have some costs,possible i suppose.

 

I mean why post at all. Am i missing something

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4868 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...