Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Unenforceable Credit Card Agreements Morgan Solicitors acting for Cabot


ohm
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5001 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

I have registered today and was glad to see your message re Georges V Cabot.Cabot have filed a case against me as assignee of debts from Providian & Barclaycard.I requested true signed copies of agreements under CCA 1974-paid £1 fee.They sent me one from Providian-acopy of a 'Reply Card' card saying 'Please reply by 15th Dec 2000'-it has my signature and dated 29 Nov 2000.No terms & Conditions.Another separate copy headed 'Financial And Related Conditions' which may be copy from any year-no link between the two.Willing to provide (not obliged as they are assignee) Barclaycard Credit Agreement when a copy is provided by the Assignor.My cheque was returned and they have stated that.

'You will observe that section 77 and 78 CCA74 states that ''The Creditor under a regulated agreement...shall give the debtor'' cetain documents.The Claimant also submits that it is an assignee of the contractual benefits of the agreement.Accordingly Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd(''Cabot UK'') is not the Creditor for the purpose of the CCA74 as defined by Section 189 of the CCA74.

The CCA states that the Creditoris ''the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law,and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement,includes the prospective creditor'' The Claimant in this case is the Assignee of the contractual benefits of the Credit Agreement and the Judgement.The contractual liabilities and the burdens of the Credit Agreement have not been assigned.The Claimants position is that as a matter of contract law,an assignment transfer the rights or benefits but does not relieve the Assignor of duties or burdons of liabilities to the other contacting party or entitle that party to enforce such duties or burdens of liabilities against the assignne of the debt.In the House Of Lords case of Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1994) 1 AC 85,Lord Brown-Wilkinson stated that ''It is trite law that it is, in any event, impossible to assign ''the contact'' as a whole,i.e.including both burden and benefit.The burden of a contract can never be assigned without the concent of the other party to the contract...''Therefore, it is submitted that the claimant is an assignee and has not been assigned the burden or the liability of the the Credit Agreement.Therefore the Claimant is not bound by Section 77 or 78 CCA74 requests.

As we the Claimant is not the Creditor for the purpose of the CCA74, we return your cheque to you.

I have filed my Defence saying that there is no valid agreement and no monies are due to Cabot.

1)The Claimant has not provided true copy of agreement fully compliant with all the regulations made under the provisions CCA 1974.Proof Required.

2)No Statement of Accounts

3)No Default Notice from Cabot

4)No Notice of Assignment etc total claim £20645.62

Allocation Questionnare to be filed by 18/7/10.

Any help/suggestions will be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ohm

 

you state that you have filed your defence, have cabot issed a claim against you? do you have have their Particulars Of Claim?

 

The CCA 1974 is quite clear on the definition of creditor and unless the Original Creditor and Cabot are the Claimant then they have no right to issue any claim.

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

I think you should cross reference this thread as I posted part of your case on here and the information should interest you.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/264876-lost-against-cabot-3.html

 

I also see the application dates from 2000. When did you last pay or acknowledge the debt? that's if you do acknowledge the debt.

Edited by Rhia
Link to post
Share on other sites

...The Claimant in this case is the Assignee of the contractual benefits of the Credit Agreement and the Judgement...

What "Judgement"?

 

This implies that Barclaycard, having obtained judgement of a regulated agreement, assigned the benefit of the judgement debt to Cabot, who in turn is claiming the judgement amount as a straightforward lump sum debt.

 

Questions spring to mind:

 

  • When was Barclaycard's CCA 74 case?
  • What were the arguments?
  • Where's the judgement?
  • Is it the same amount as now claimed by Cabots?
  • Does it order payment by instalments?

If there isn't a judgement, then what are Cabot talking about?

 

Take a look at this. The bit from "Here's how" about half-way down has remarkable similarities. In particular, the last two paragraphs could be your escape route if well argued.

 

[rams thinking cap more firmly on ...]

Edited by Meldrew
typo & link repair

Oh dear, why do these things always happen to me - I don't beli...

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and another thing:

...In the House Of Lords case of Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1994) 1 AC 85,Lord Brown-Wilkinson stated that ''It is trite law that it is, in any event, impossible to assign ''the contact'' as a whole,i.e.including both burden and benefit.The burden of a contract can never be assigned without the concent of the other party to the contract...''

But CCA 74 expressly requires a valid assignment to comprise "rights and duties" ("both burden and benefit" in Lord Brown-Wilkinson's words). Therefore I don't think his Lordship's remarks apply here.

Oh dear, why do these things always happen to me - I don't beli...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoke and screen springs to mind, this stinks of someone trying to throw contractual law in to the ring.......

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoke and screen springs to mind, this stinks of someone trying to throw contractual law in to the ring.......

Hey now, hadit - I hope you don't mean me...? :???:

Edited by Meldrew
gloop!

Oh dear, why do these things always happen to me - I don't beli...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am sure they don't.

 

There is another thread where Cabots legal people have appeared to raise dubious cases, just to confuse.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey now, hadit - I hope you don't mean me...? :???:

 

 

As if I would my friend, sorry I didnt make that clearer.. I was refering to the OP they have posted this nonsence in every thread they could put it.

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have this theory (which you may think whacky) but I think Cabot start threads under nom de plumes with the odd real case they have won and pretend to be the Defendant. It's all aimed at undermining CAGers confidence that they can't take Cabot on and win. But, as we all know, people are taking on Cabot and Morgan and they can and do win. Carry on winning!

 

Meanwhile I do enjoy spotting their stooges...it's such great sport on a slow telly night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this theory (which you may think whacky) but I think Cabot start threads under nom de plumes with the odd real case they have won and pretend to be the Defendant. It's all aimed at undermining CAGers confidence that they can't take Cabot on and win. But, as we all know, people are taking on Cabot and Morgan and they can and do win. Carry on winning!

 

Meanwhile I do enjoy spotting their stooges...it's such great sport on a slow telly night.

 

Hahaha im back and I totally agree with Rhia, these have to be stooges that are trying portray that cabot are invincible....Fools

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cym

 

yes.. thankyou for asking, almost a month in sunny Mauritius certainly has blown the cobwebs away.. just trying to get my head together after the 22 hours travelling.

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...