Another Court Hearing 14/06/10 Skipton/Amberloan/Cabot/Morgan's V Me!

[Martel]

Several are hearings are imminent – they had been scheduled for last year then postponed pending the outcome of the test cases. Oh, and the DJ is overt in their hatred for any cases like this.

 

I was safe in the knowledge that they were being handled by respected solicitors on a no fee basis. They had reassured me that all the cases had merit and we were in touch by email and phone. They were terribly gung ho and supportive, very positive. This week, they dumped me without any notice. I am utterly furious and really exposed……and I need help! My second hearing is Monday, 14/6/10.

 

I’ve already fended off a judgment entered in default of defence – completely erroneously filed by the Court!!

 

The POCs are:

 

The Claimant is part of the Cabot Financial Group and has purchased the debt(s) scheduled below. Despite requests for the payment the Defendant has failed to pay the sum of XX,XXX in relation to the Defendant’s Skipton Building Society Amebrloans account number XXXX, and the Claimant claims: the sum of XX,XXX together with interest under section 69 of the county Courts Act 1984; and costs.

 

My Defence:

 

1. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant, as alleged in the POCs, or at all

2. The Claimant contends that an alleged debt in the sum of XX,XXX is owed, which is denied

3. It is further averred by the Claimant that the alleged debt was purportedly assigned by Amberloans to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited on XXXX. The Defendant maintains that the chose purportedly transferred is unassignable, as a properly executed credit agreement has nto been produced in the requisite timescale or at all, to prove the existence of the alleged debt.

4. In the premises, it is denied that the purported chose is capable of assignment, and it is further denied that the sad chose was in fact assigned to the Claimant.

5. Contrary to s.136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Claimant failed to serve a NOA in accordance with the aforesaid Act. Express notice in writing detailing the alleged assignment was required to be served. The document supplied by the Claimant dated XXXXX, does not comply with the strict requirements of the s.136(1) of the Act, as the sum demanded is inclusive of penalty charges, which are unlawful at common Law, under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

6. Pursuant to s.136(1) of the LOP ct 1925, the financial particulars of a NOA must be strictly accurate to have legal validity, which for the aforesaid reason, the letter of XXXX, is rendered ineffective as it is irredeemably flawed.

7. In the premise, iti is denied that the letter sent by the Claimant date XXX, constitutes a NOA within the meaning of s.136(1) of the LOP Act 1925

8. The Defendant, on XXXX, sent a request in writing to Amberloans. The said request was made under s.77(1), of the CCA 1974 (Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’)

9. Amberloans had twelve working days from receipt of the written request, in which to furnish a credit agreement, as stipulated in Regulation 2 of the CC (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983, which provided until the XXXXX, for the requisite documents to be supplied.

10. By Way of reply, the Defendant received a letter from Amberloans dated XXX, in which it was stated that a copy of properly executed agreement was enclosed, which is denied.

11. The document supplied by Amberloans purports to be a agreement regulated by the Act and thus governed by the CC(Agreements) Regulations 1983.

12. The document was not properly executed contrary to s.61(1) of the Act in that the alleged agreement document does not contain prescribed terms.

13. In the premises, the purported agreement is unenforceable under s.65(1) of the Act by reason of s.127(3) of the Act.

14. Contrary to s.62(2) of the Act, when the unexecuted purported agreement was sent to the Defendant for his signature, the Claimant did not send a copy of it, and other document referred to in it as required.

15. Contrary to s.63(2) of the Act, a copy of the alleged executed agreement was not sent to the Defendant

16. In the premises, the purported agreement is unenforceable by the Claimant against the Defendant

17. The said document furnished by the Claimant was cancellable within the meaning of Regulation 5(4) of the CC(Cancellation Notices and copies of Documents) (Amendment) Regulations 1984

18. The Claimant provided the Defendant with cancellation rights as an express term of the purported agreement.

19. Where such cancellation rights are conferred upon a debtor as if the agreement were such a cancellable agreement within the meaning of the Act and the CC(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, the agreement may be treated as if it were a cancellable agreement within the meaning of the Act and he Regulations, and then Regulation 2 shall then apply as if the agreement were such a cancellable agreement.

20. It is averred that contrary to section 64(1) of the Act, the document contained no notice in the prescribed form, indicating the right of the Defendant to cancel the alleged agreement and how and when that right is exercisable, and the name and address of the person to whom notice of cancellation may be given. The said notice must be accompanied by a cancellation form under Regulations 5(2)(b) of the CC(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) (Amendment) Regulations 1984.

21. Furthermore, the said notice had to be included in each copy of the document provided under s.62(2) of the Act.

22. In the premises, the alleged agreement is not enforceable by the Claimant and the Claimant is not entitled to an enforcement order under section 65(1) of the Act, by reason of s.127(4)(b) of the Act.

23. If which is denied, the Defendant did enter into an agreement with the Claimant, the said alleged agreement was an agreement to enter into a prospective agreement which would have been regulated by the Act. By reason of s.59(1) of the Act, as agreement o enter into prospective regulated agreement is void.

24. Accordingly, if which is not admitted, there was any agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant, any such agreement is rendered void by that section.

25. It is the Defendant’s position that having failed to produce a properly executed credit agreement within the requisite timescale or at all, Amberloans was in default of the sad request under s.77(4)(a) of the Act, as of the XXXX. Furthermore, under s.77(4)(b) of the Act, Amberloans had committed a criminal offence as of the XXXXX, as the default had continued for a period of one month.

26. As the purported chose is unassignable, Amberloans has continued to commit a criminal offence for a period of 1 year and 3 months.

27. Contrary to s.87(1) of the Act, a DN has not been served on the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that a DN was served as required.

28. The Defendant contend that the Claimant has commenced these proceedings both unlawfully and vexatiously, having failed to establish any legal right to issue a Court claim.

 

 

Morgan’s Witness Statement:

 

....2. Background relating to the Claimant

2.1 Cabot Europe and the Claimant are companies which are part of the Cabot Financial Groups ('The Group')

2.2 The principal activity of the Group is the purchase and recovery of debt.

2.3 The majority of debt acquired by the Claimant is in relation to Credit Cars, the debts being acquired from many well known household named financial institutions.

2.4 The Claimant company is the Company used by the Group to acquire debt. the servicing of the acc't and the associated collection procedures are conducted by Cabot Europe.

2.5 Save for Statutory Officers, Cabot UK does not have any employees. The Company is used by the Group as purchaser of various portfolios of debt that are acquired.

2.6 All constituent members of the Group operate from substantial premises in Kent with Cabot Europe employing some 520 staff as at March 25th 2009.

2.7 For the avoidance of doubt any further references to the Claimant shall also mean references to Cabot UK and vice versa

3.The Defendant's Loan Acc't with Skipton Building Society trading as Amerbloan, Cabot ReferenceXXX

3.1 on XXXX the Defendant opened a Loan Acc't with Skipton bldg Society trading as Amberloan (‘Amberloan’), acc't number XXXX ('the account'). A copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement relating to the acc't and signed by the Defendant is exhibited herewith at 'X1'.

3.2 A copy of the statement in relation to the Defendant’s acc't from XXXX to XXXX is shown to by marked 'X2" and the balance outstanding at the last entry prior is XXX. Exhibited herewith at ‘X3’ is a copy of a letter sent to the Defendant by Amberloan.

3.3 The difference between the balance as shown on the statement and the assigned balance is due to the following two items. There is interest in the sum of XXXX, shown on the statement at ‘X2” as the entry dated XXXX, which although due is not applied. The Assignor has also removed the default charge in the sum of £50.00, shown on the statement as ‘X2’ as the entry dated XXXX

3.4 There is exhibited at ‘X4’ copy of the DN sent to the Defendant on XXX by the Assignor

3. There is exhibited at ‘X4’ a copy of the DN sent to the Defendant on XXXX is exhibited as ‘X5’. The text within the Notice is stored electronically by Cabot Europe and therefore the document is exhibited is a ‘representation’ as opposed to a ‘copy’.

3.5 There is exhibited herewith 'X4' a copy of the Cabot Europe Case History in relation to the Defendant's acc't. It logs correspondence written or otherwise between Cabot Europe and the Defendant from the date the debt was purchased by the Claimant until instructions to litigate were prepared on the XXXXXX and the relevant entries have been marked by me for ease of reference.

3.6 For the sake of clarification, Cabot Europe has allocated reference number XXXX to the acc't. This reference number appears on some documents and correspondence in relation to the Defendant's acc't in this matter.

3.7. There is exhibited herewith at ‘X6 a copy of the Cabot Europe Case History in relation to the Defendant’s account. It logs correspondence written or otherwise between Cabot Europe and the Defendant from the date the debt was purchased by the Claimant until instructions to litigate were prepared on the XXXX and the relevant entries have been marked by me for ease of reference.

3.8 the last payment made to the account y the Defendant was on XXX in the sum of XXX and a copy of Cabot Europe’s Statement of Account covering the period from the date of purchase of the debt to the XXXX is exhibited herewith at ‘X7’. For sake of clarification no interest has been applied to the Defendant’s account since assignment.

[NailPost]

I don't feel able to comment on your defence but solicitors who dump anyone without giving notice or reasons may need to be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

[Martel]

NP, thanks for your post. In the end, I think it all came down to ....money. Or pure laziness. Or stupidity. Or a combination of all three.

 

Once I get through these hearings, I'll consider what to do re reporting these sols......

 

Meanwhile, with the help of CAG (much brighter than any sols I've encountered), I'm getting on with things (have a court hearing this Weds and there is another thread about that).

 

Thanks for your support!

MX

[pt2537]

I don't feel able to comment on your defence but solicitors who dump anyone without giving notice or reasons may need to be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

erm, not quite

 

If the case was running on a CFA (conditional Fee Basis) then the CFA will provide that if the prospects of success fall below 50% in the opinion of the Solicitor or Counsels opinion, then, the solicitor is entitled to stop acting on a CFA and then seek payment on account, if you refuse to pay on account he is entitled to stop acting

 

there is nothing wrong with this and to complain is not fair on the solicitor as he will then have lots of hassle with LCS and the SRA which is not really fair

[gh2008]

In your Defence, the most powerful line is hidden in a sea of rubbish.

 

IF what is said about Prescribed Terms is true, then point 13 is your saviour.

 

Most of the rest is rubbish IMHO - why was it a cancellable agreement? (it may well have been, but there are a few hoops to go through to make it one - and they are not pleaded)

 

I don't see any problem with the assignment - you can assign simple debts and there is nothing in the CCA saying you cannot assign if you are in default of a s.77

 

Get completely up to speed on s.61, s.65 & s.127(3) and yes it does apply as your agreement was pre April '07 (well I presume it was)

 

You will have to check re your complaint about the solicitors.

IMHO they should have at least have put themselves down as representing you (if that's what they had agreed to do) as that in itself would have prevented the problems today.....

[Martel]

Ah, lucky 13!!! thanks, GH....will investigate tomorrow as my head is swimming.....huge thanks......should knock together a WS.

 

Can you BELIEVE my sols??? Or how gullible I was??? And I deal with sols a lot in my biz.....

 

MXXXXX

[AndyOrch]

Subbing Martel

 

Get back to you later.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

 

 

Sorry to hear that news on your other thread BTW:mad:

[Martel]

Subbing Martel

 

Get back to you later.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

 

 

Sorry to hear that news on your other thread BTW:mad:

 

Thanks so much.

 

And, it's not over til it's over. Foolishgirl has lots of opinions!!!

 

MXXX

[Martel]

erm, not quite

 

If the case was running on a CFA (conditional Fee Basis) then the CFA will provide that if the prospects of success fall below 50% in the opinion of the Solicitor or Counsels opinion, then, the solicitor is entitled to stop acting on a CFA and then seek payment on account, if you refuse to pay on account he is entitled to stop acting

 

there is nothing wrong with this and to complain is not fair on the solicitor as he will then have lots of hassle with LCS and the SRA which is not really fair

 

I wonder if it’s ‘fair’ to tell the client they have representation for almost a year, in fact be enthusiastic about their prospects, and then dump them three days before the first of three hearings in a week? When they had all the information for their decision 6 months earlier? Refusing to pay on account? How about refusing to even bother discussing that with me?

 

Too late for any adjournments, too late to arrange other legal representation, too late do anything except watch my life unravel.

 

Watch my life unravel.

 

I have another word for that kind of behaviour. It definitely begins with ‘f’ but it’s not ‘fair’.

[Martel]

In your Defence, the most powerful line is hidden in a sea of rubbish.

 

IF what is said about Prescribed Terms is true, then point 13 is your saviour.

 

Most of the rest is rubbish IMHO - why was it a cancellable agreement? (it may well have been, but there are a few hoops to go through to make it one - and they are not pleaded)

 

I don't see any problem with the assignment - you can assign simple debts and there is nothing in the CCA saying you cannot assign if you are in default of a s.77

 

Get completely up to speed on s.61, s.65 & s.127(3) and yes it does apply as your agreement was pre April '07 (well I presume it was)

 

You will have to check re your complaint about the solicitors.

IMHO they should have at least have put themselves down as representing you (if that's what they had agreed to do) as that in itself would have prevented the problems today.....

 

Hi GH,

 

Yes, the agreement is 2006. Am struggling to get my head around the following from CCA 1974:

 

65 Consequences of improper execution

 

(1) An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only.

 

 

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

 

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

61 Signing of agreement

 

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

 

 

 

60 Form and content of agreements

 

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

 

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

 

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

 

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

 

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

 

 

Am going to attempt to scan and post the agreement. See you in about ten years, MX

 

PS Can a DN legally include 'Administration Fee' (£50)

[Hadituptohere]

 

 

PS Can a DN legally include 'Administration Fee' (£50)

 

Nope...

[Martel]

Nope...

 

so.....does the inclusion render it defective? MX

[Hadituptohere]

Yes as far as im aware if it includes any fees it is defective, this is what ive ive been told, banker rymes with seems to be well up on this, will try and find some threads for you

 

 

Hadituptohere

Edited June 11, 2010 by Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Check this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/196312-invalid-default-notices.html

 

hope this helps

[cymruambyth]

Hi, I don't know if any of this will help, it was from BRW

 

Your Strongest Argument

 

That defective s87(1) Default Notice is your strongest Application argument so, it's the one you hit them with first and hardest. Don't get bogged down saying too much else, otherwise you will just soften the impact of your main point. To ram that home, you must know the issues backwards, and be willing and able to make it clear that there can be no leeway on this issue.

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with morals, so do not let the Judge try to get past this by saying daft things like...

Quote:

...were you going to pay it?

 

...you've spent it so you must pay it back.

That is not for the Judge to rule upon if the Notice is defective. The acid test is the Notice itself. Was it set out in the Prescribed form using the Prescribed words, did it accurately state what you had done wrong in relation to the Terms of the Agreement, did it accurately state the exact default amount they were entitled to demand that you pay and did the Notice give you 14 clear days?

 

If the answers to any of the above are no, then the Notice is defective, and the Claimant loses any right to enjoy s87 benefits. If the Agreement is also Terminated, either by a Termination Letter because they have taken enforcement action not otherwise allowed unless they had secured s87 benefits, then that Agreement is ended, and they cannot thereafter issue an effective s87(1) Default Notice.

 

 

Further Reading

 

You must read the Default Notice Thread by Surfaceagentx20, and you must read this case and include it with your Skeleton Argument (and send the enemy a copy well ahead of Court):

 

Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998 )

 

Note the Judge's comments about accuracy, i.e. if they ask for something to which they are not entitled then, in his Judgment, the Notice is defective.

 

Also, note that the Judge in that case does not say that a Court can overlook anything if it is de minimis, he only says they might overlook something...i.e. if the matter were very small. I would suggest that would be something like missing a full stop, or a minor issue like that.

 

 

Fighting a de minimis arugument:

• Failing to set the Notice out in the Prescribed way, using the Prescribed Wording is not de minimis.

• Failing to state what you have done wrong with accuracy in order that this fault can be remedied is not de minimis.

• Failing to state the exact default sum you need to pay in order to remedy the default is not de minimis.

• Failing to allow the Statutory number of clear days that Parliament demands that you must be allowed is not de minimis.

 

The Court cannot allow for any such errors, because there is nothing in either the Act nor the supporting Statute that permits any leeway. The phrase de minimis is not mentioned anywhere that matters. In any event, all this phrase means is a Court can overlook a very small matter that is of little concern.

 

If the Judge or the enemy try to use a de minimis argument, then ask them to direct you to the area of the Law that mentions they can do this? i.e. just so that you can direct people to this point later when the Appeal comes up!

 

But, seriously, get your ahead around this, and realise that there is no leeway if they get the Notice wrong. It cannot be fixed, unless they are entitled to issue an effective Notice, and to do that, the Agreement has to be live, which it cannot be if they have taken you to Court to demand early payment.

 

 

The Right to Demand Early Payment Depends on s87

 

The right to demand early payment is only available to them if they are already in possession of an effective s87(1) Default Notice that you failed to remedy once the Statutory time had elapsed. Without that, it's a Catch 22 situation for them, because they need an effective Notice to use s87 and, if they are found to have used s87 without an effective Notice, then they have clearly Terminated the Agreement via unlawful Rescission of Contract. That's because they have demanded something from you to which they were not entitled, so have shot themselves in the foot because it is then they who have broken the Agreement by doing this.

 

 

Secondary Arguments

 

Once you have banged home the above issue, then of course the next main points you can hit them with is their poorly pleaded Particulars of Claim (read CPR so that you understand CPR 16), and their monstrous attempt to try and make you pay s69 County Courts Act 1984 8% Simple interest in relation to a Claim that is based upon a Regulated Agreement.

 

Take a copy of this, and include it in your Skeleton [note s2(3)(a)]

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991

 

 

Minor Arguments

 

By all means mention the way they have behaved generally, but keep it short and sweet, and use this mainly to show how unreasonable they have been, and how Court could have been avoided had they acted more decently.

 

 

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.

 

Remember the above! Proper Prior Planning Prevents P*** Poor Performance!

 

Get your notes ready, then spend some time reading out aloud, from memory, what you want to say. If you stumble, then make some brief notes to help yourself. Then try again, and again, and again.

 

If you keep getting it wrong, then by all means draft a speech, and tell the Judge you are a Litigant in Person, unfamiliar with speaking in Court, so would the Judge mind if you read out your speech from your pre-prepared notes. Stand up, speak clearly and slowly, and state your case that supports your Application.

 

Make sure your Court Bundle is next to you, and practice how you can turn to anything you might need to refer to, such as CCA s87, CCA s88, the Statute on Default Notices [Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 SI 1983-1561], the above Case that covers Default Notices, and anything else you think would be useful.

 

 

A Quick Self-Test

 

To test yourself, try working out answers and strong counters to the following questions and invalid statements:

• A Default Notice is not important, I can overlook that, what matters is the Agreement.

Point out that the proper execution of the Agreement is another matter, and does not affect the key issue over their loss of any right of action if they have failed to end the Agreement appropriately.

• The Notice is dated the 1st and they want payment by the 15th, that's over 14 days, is it not. What's your problem?

Point out that's not allowing 14 clear days, see the Tables above based on 1st and 2nd Class Post, explain the way 14 clear days must be allowed, and the consequences of getting it wrong because they lose all s87 benefits for all time.

• You clearly owed them money, are you denying that?

Point out that it is for the Claimant to prove that a properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement was made, and can be produced before the Court (CPR PD16 7.3), and then for the Claimant to prove they have secured a right of action to demand early payment of sums not otherwise due before they elected to end such an Agreement. Say you are not denying that an Agreement was made, but questioning if it was properly made, and if they have ended it in such a way that allows them to seek early payment of sums not otherwise due.

• Demanding early payment is not enforcement, and does not end the Agreement.

Point out that the recent McGuffick case, and the latest OFT guidelines confirm that demanding early payment is enforcement, and requires s87 benefits. Those benefits are only secured by following s87 and s88 to the letter. Taking such steps without s87 benefits, is a breach of the Agreement on the part of the Creditor and amounts to an unlawful rescission entitling you to a valid Claim for damages against them for ending the Agreement in this way

• The default sum is correct if they deduct the unlawful charges they have since offered to repay and/or have since repaid.

Point out that a bank is, or should be, in a position to get their figures right. Nobody would accept errors when checking their bank balance via ATM, so it's only reasonable that a bank should know, to the penny, what is owed at any one time. If they have made mistakes, or levied charges to which they were not entitled, then this destroys any credibility that the sum they claimed in the Notice was properly owing and due. The above Case makes it clear that demanding sums to which a bank is not entitled, will render any Notice defective on that basis alone.

• The Default Notice is headed correctly, and you must've known what it was about, so why should I not overlook these minor errors that you say exist.

Point out that the wording of a Notice is Prescribed, there can be no room for error. If the Judge agrees that the Notice contains errors, and/or mistakes and/or has not allowed the Statutory time, then it can only be the case that the Notice is defective and must rule on that basis. To rule otherwise, needs to be supported, and say you cannot see anything in either the Act or supporting Statute that permits defects in a Notice to be overlooked. Direct the Judge to Swain...and have ready, read out aloud, some of the best and hardest hitting quotes from that Case.

 

 

So, start asking similar questions, and start thinking how you would counter them. Then go back and re-word your main opening statement so that you try to cover such issues before the Judge starts asking them!

 

The trick is to go in hard from the outset, and leave the Judge no sensible option but to agree with you! But do be ready to answer any questions, and field any fast balls the Judge shoots at you to probe any gaps in your Application's verbal opening statement on the day.

 

If you can spot a problem today, you can bet the Judge will spot it on the day. So keep going over this, and keep refining your line of attack until you have covered all the key issues. Then condense it so the Judge does not fall asleep while you read it all out!

 

I do hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

[Martel]

Check this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/196312-invalid-default-notices.html

 

hope this helps

 

 

Ah, thanks so much, Had.

 

I have spent the ENTIRE evening trying to post scanned docs. I cannot seem to make photobucket work. Am going crazy!! think it would really help to show these docs.....do you know anyway of transferring pdf files to a thread????

 

So frustrating!!!

 

MX

[cymruambyth]

How far are you getting with photobucket, I have managed to get files from it and I'm pretty useless!

[Martel]

Hi, I don't know if any of this will help, it was from BRW

 

 

I do hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

 

Cym!! This is like a handbook that EVERY LIP should have.....fantastic. Also, rather zen in its approach. Really, really, really helpful....thanks so much!!

 

MXXX

 

PS have scanned docs I'm trying to post but am incapable. Even tho, I'm sure, a 5 year old could do it!

[Martel]

How far are you getting with photobucket, I have managed to get files from it and I'm pretty useless!

 

 

I have literally spent all night on it, getting more confused. Maybe it's psychological. Wish there was a way of just PUTTING the pdfs on my thread.

 

grrrrr.......MX

[Hadituptohere]

Sorry martel not well up on that, have you a digital camera you could take pics of the document and then post them, this has worked for me in the past..

 

Also any assignment to cabot has to be queried, they openly admit that they dont have the duties but the rights and the assignment is to cabot(europe) ltd not cabot (uk) ltd who 9 times out of 10 are the Claimant therefore they need an assignment between the two registered companies

thanks cym

 

Hadituptohere

[cymruambyth]

If you get the documents scanned, and all information deleted, where the box 'share this image' is click and paste on Direct Link box, I think that should bring it up when you paste on your thread.

[Martel]

Sorry martel not well up on that, have you a digital camera you could take pics of the document and then post them, this has worked for me in the past..

 

Also any assignment to cabot has to be queried, they openly admit that they dont have the duties but the rights and the assignment is to cabot(europe) ltd not cabot (uk) ltd who 9 times out of 10 are the Claimant therefore they need an assignment between the two registered companies

thanks cym

 

Hadituptohere

 

Hi Had,

 

Well, we went around and around in circles re Cabot UK v Cabot Europe at the hearing. I was patronised by the barrister and sol, explaining over and over again as though I was an idiot that C Europe acts as the collector of C UK. I said they are two separate companies, registered separately at Companies House and I'd like to see an Assignment from C Uk to C Europe.

The DJ referred to me as 'confused' in her summing up. More like incandescent. This really significant fact, which must be a point of law, was brushed off like an irritating fly.

 

The condescension and prejudice is overt.

 

Am pursuing it regardless.

 

MXXX

[Martel]

If you get the documents scanned, and all information deleted, where the box 'share this image' is click and paste on Direct Link box, I think that should bring it up when you paste on your thread.

 

Oh, Cym, if you only knew my technical limitations (i.e., stupidity!!)....i will persevere tomorrow am when my brain is not so clouded (haha!).

 

Thanks for your patience......

 

MXXX

[Hadituptohere]

You certainly seem to have your work cut out here, im sure foolishgirl and the more experienced will drop by and advise to a greater degree than I can but this is what I have learnt from them, there is something to go at here im sure

 

hadituptohere

[Martel]

You certainly seem to have your work cut out here, im sure foolishgirl and the more experienced will drop by and advise to a greater degree than I can but this is what I have learnt from them, there is something to go at here im sure

 

hadituptohere

 

Had, you're a brick.

 

Thanks to you and Cym - wishing you both a good night and see you on the other side!!

 

MX