cabot/restons Claimform - Vanquis Debt***Claim Discontinued***

[letsgetitsorted]

Hi Andyorch

I had a quick look through some of them, but was just getting a bit confussed, brain not functioning 100%.

 

The defence above was an edited one I used with Cohan when they tried to get a CCJ.

 

I didnt think that a defence as per one below was enough as I had already had a copy of the CCA (although a bad one)

 

so shall i just edited this one to suite and use the info I have for the witness statement when and should the time arrise.

 

Many thanks yet again

Lets

 

Defence

 

1. 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 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Marks& Spencer Financial Services .

 

3.Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served last year from either the Claimant or Marks and Spencer Financial Services.

 

4.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement 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;

 

5. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77/78 for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my section 77/78 request and remain in default and with regards to my CPR 31.14 request have stated that they are under no obligation to disclose any documentation on which their claim is based.

 

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

 

7. On the alternative, as 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 82 A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

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

 

 

 

Thank you once again,

[letsgetitsorted]

HI all here is my amended defense ...hopefully it will be ok as i will need to get this off tomorowor thursday at the latest.

 

any and all thoughts most welcome

 

cheers

Lets

 

 

Particulars of claim

 

1.The Claimant Claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant/s under a contract between the defendant/s and vanquis dated on or about 3/2/06

 

2. Assigned to the claimant on 23/2/11 in the sum of £xxx

particulars a/c No

Date item total

30/06/2014 Default Balance £xxxx

Post Refrl cr nil

 

total £xxxxx

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

1) I, xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the Defendant in this claim filed by Restons Solicitors on behalf of Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd

 

2) The Defendant contend that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. I therefore set out my case and I rely on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made

 

3) Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with Vanquis Bank.

 

4) Paragraph 2 is denied, I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment served either by Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd, the claimant or by Vanquis Bank.

 

5) It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of Assignment/Balance/Breach requested, therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement or contract with the Claimant.

b) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for

c) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statue or equity to issue a claim.

 

6) As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Edited September 9, 2014 by Andyorch
Particulars added for cross reference

[AndyOrch]

Could you type out their particulars Lets in it entirty...cant check a defence without their pleadings

[letsgetitsorted]

many thanks again Andy, here are the POC as it appears on the claim form.

 

cheers Lets

 

The Claimant Claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant/s under a contract between the defendant/s and vanquis dated on or about 3/2/06 and assigned to the claimant on 23/2/11 in the sum of £xxx

particulars a/c No

Date item total

30/06/2014 Default Balance £xxxx

Post Refrl cr nil

 

 

total £xxxxx

[AndyOrch]

Particulars added and cross referenced...slight amendments made....

 

I think you need to expand a little on point 3

 

I would add that the claimant has failed to comply with previous requests under section 78.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[letsgetitsorted]

yet again many thanks for the help Andy

 

I have amended as suggested an have also added this to Para 3.

 

3) Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with Vanquis Bank, Vanquis Bank have failed to supply an agreement/contract under section 78/79 of the Consumer credit act 1974, the same request was made to the Claimant, who have also failed to supply a valid agreement/contract.It is my understanding that until such time they can comply with this request any agreement is unenforcible in law unless with the courts order.

 

 

many thanks

Lets

Edited September 10, 2014 by Andyorch
addition

[letsgetitsorted]

Well my defense went in on time, had a letter from Northampton to say that they have it and it will be passed to the claimants.

 

today brings a letter from them

1) my defense used is one readily available on the internet.

2) they say that i should have had a copy of the contractual terms when the account was opened and they cannot understand my reason for the request.

3) they have sent me copies of the NoA which they believe constitutes valid NoA

4) although i have put them to strict proof, i have not entered into an agreement with the claimant

5) my defense has little or no chance of success so they are going to move to have my defense struck out

6) they invite me to withdraw my defense in order for me to avoid a ccj and further costs being awarded.

 

any thoughts

 

cheers

Lets

[The GodMother]

Well my defense went in on time, had a letter from Northampton to say that they have it and it will be passed to the claimants.

 

today brings a letter from them

1) my defense used is one readily available on the internet.

2) they say that i should have had a copy of the contractual terms when the account was opened and they cannot understand my reason for the request.

3) they have sent me copies of the NoA which they believe constitutes valid NoA

4) although i have put them to strict proof, i have not entered into an agreement with the claimant

5) my defense has little or no chance of success so they are going to move to have my defense struck out

6) they invite me to withdraw my defense in order for me to avoid a ccj and further costs being awarded.

 

any thoughts

 

cheers

Lets

 

 

Wow not that l havent seen that before, you can tell them that if u want.

 

2) you have asked for them as you want them because:-

a) its your legal rite to have ALL terms for the duration of the alleged agreement.

b) just cause you SHOULD have had the contratural terms when the alleged account was set up and during the time you allegedly had a account with the claimant it does not mean you have had a copy of them.

3) they believe the NOA is vald just like you believe in the tooth fairy father christmas etc

4) no proof no agreement.

5) they can do thi but they still need to PROVE the account.

6) thanks for the Invite but you still have not proved l owe any money

[dx100uk]

that's a std reply.

 

 

whose it from

 

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Well my defense went in on time, had a letter from Northampton to say that they have it and it will be passed to the claimants.

 

today brings a letter from them

1) my defense used is one readily available on the internet.

2) they say that i should have had a copy of the contractual terms when the account was opened and they cannot understand my reason for the request.

3) they have sent me copies of the NoA which they believe constitutes valid NoA

4) although i have put them to strict proof, i have not entered into an agreement with the claimant

5) my defense has little or no chance of success so they are going to move to have my defense struck out

6) they invite me to withdraw my defense in order for me to avoid a ccj and further costs being awarded.

 

any thoughts

 

cheers

Lets

 

 

 

Hi Lets,

 

 

I'm sorry to say this is becoming an all to familiar response. Cabot and others are watching forums and " template" letters and defences with the same theme are easily recognised, and are treated with no little contempt as you have seen here.

 

 

Beef up your response demand the information you require, you are entitled to have the documents they intend to rely even if you do already have a copy of your own.

[letsgetitsorted]

whose it from

 

this is from Restons

 

2) you have asked for them as you want them because:-

a) its your legal rite to have ALL terms for the duration of the alleged agreement. and so far Restons have failed to supply a copy as i should rely on my own records

b) just cause you SHOULD have had the contratural terms when the alleged account was set up and during the time you allegedly had a account with the claimant it does not mean you have had a copy of them. no signed agreement ever given just a copy of the application form

3) they believe the NOA is vald just like you believe in the tooth fairy father christmas etc

would i be right in saying they need to prove that i actually received one

4) no proof no agreement. thats what i thought

5) they can do thi but they still need to PROVE the account. indeed

6) thanks for the Invite but you still have not proved l owe any money, thats what i was going to right back, also telling them to go forth

 

thank you GM, they even sent me an I.E to fill out along with a form to withdraw my defense (so that they can get judgement by default)

[The GodMother]

But DONT multiply.

I would be cheeky and thank them for the I and E and form to withdraw the defence but you WILL NOT be filling them out.

yes re the NOA they would need to prove it was sent but they could argue that they never recieved it back so it must have been delivered. Tho u could argue that any computer evidence may not correct as a computer relys on information to be put in and not everything maybe accurate. Remember dont call them liars.

[AndyOrch]

No need to respond at all Lets ...you have submitted your defence...its their turn now if they wish to proceed........dont get sucked into their fishing exercise.

 

1) my defence used is one readily available on the internet.

 

Really....? I should start charging copyright:lol:

 

Andy

[letsgetitsorted]

Nope no intention of responding, the only response they get from me is a full witness statement when its due and obviously the AQ when i get it.

 

i read between the lines of their letter basically pleading for me to withdraw my defense so that they can win by default and me admitt the claim...NO CHANCE.

 

if i thought i didnt have a case i wouldnt have let it get this far ..but i have and i will be happy to see this one through.

[letsgetitsorted]

Just had a phone call from Restons, asking me if i had chance to review their letter, my response was yes, their next question was, will you be withdrawing your defense, my answer No, was going to be transfered to another dept but phone went dead, just waiting for it to ring again.

[The GodMother]

I would not have answered the questions

[letsgetitsorted]

i thought that after i answered them, but it took great pleasure in saying i was not going to withdraw my defenCe...just waiting now o see what their next move is

[letsgetitsorted]

Well just an update, since i had the phone call from them, i have had no further contact, no letters or anything from either Restons or Northampton CC.. should i be worried

[dx100uk]

no smiling you've called their bluff

 

 

dx

[letsgetitsorted]

just another update,

 

spoke to Northampton today,

 

asked for an update,

 

 

was told that they have had not a phone call letter or anything from Restons,

 

 

therefore the claim is stayed as it is well beyond the 28 days since the defenCe was received by Restons..

 

 

...is there anyway to go from here...

 

cheers

Lets

[AndyOrch]

No need to go anywhere Lets...the claim is stayed.

 

Andy

[letsgetitsorted]

okidoki Andy, will let you know if anything else turns up

 

cheers

Lets

[letsgetitsorted]

Well Andy, I said I would let you know if anything turned up.

 

 

..today i have received a letter from Restons,

 

 

"Unfortunately, we do not appear to have received a response to our previuos letter dated 30/9/2014,

and would be gratefull if you could kindly confirm whether you are prepared to withdraw your defence."

 

me think this is begging me to withdraw my defence, despite the claim is still stayed.

[dx100uk]

yep!!

 

 

dx

[letsgetitsorted]

Here is my response to their letter.

 

I can confirm that I WILL NOT be withdrawing my defence with regards to the claim brought against me in relation to an alleged Vanquis debt.

I look forward to receiving your letter confirming that Restons will be discontinuing the claim against me and the matter has now been dropped.