Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • 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

Cabot/Morgans going to court with copy/illegible CCA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4916 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

When you go tomorrow, just tell them you have the Cabot Fan Club behind you - they are going to have to better than that to get this one passed the judge would they like to settle before going into court or wait for the slaughter?

 

" but did one more search last night and find one CRA has defaults listed in Cabots name and the original creditor?"

 

Are you saying you have 2 defaults registered for the same debt? That's a big No-No....!!

 

YES! OC default dated 22/11/7 and Cabot default dated 1/11/7 is shown on CRA. Claim was only made in Jan this year though and Cabot have sent a representation of a DN dated 23rd Dec 09. Im confused?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Rhia and Andrew say, the double entry on the defaults is a dead give away.

 

But do bear in mind that the registering of a default with the CRAs is NOT the same as the issue of a DN!

 

OK Donkey thanks for pointing that out because I was making that link, does the fact that the OC state the account ended in 31/10/09 make a link to it being terminated though?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shaarn,

If they have not issued a DN and it is not terminated, which is what they seem to be saying, that means that the account must still be live. If this is the case, they should have been sending regular statements of account.

How prepared are you?

Very best of luck.

 

No regular statements recieved since Sept 09 when the balance appears to have been zero-ed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shaarn,

Another thing, I read on a similar thread that the defendant gave the "agreement" to the oppo solicitor and asked him to read (a particular illegible part) of it. This should prove the point.

 

Great Idea!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OC has registered a default that's OK but if they assign the debt to a DCA the original default has to come off before Cabot can start to regsister it. In other words you can't have two defaults for one debt.

 

And yes pabrmu agree check if it's live or not.

 

How can I check it is live? (is this a stupid question)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shaarn,

If you have not been receiving monthly statements, then I don't think that it can be a live agreement.Someone better qualified than me will tell you the part of CCA 1974 that says this.

If it is not live, then it must have been terminated, in which case you should have received the DN and termination Notice.

Another error that they normally make is not sending the Notice of Assignment by registered/recorded delivery.

Have you acknowledged receipt of the NOA?

If not, and they do not have proof of posting, they cannot prove that they own the debt.

The law governing the correct serving of the NOA is the Law of Property Act 1925, Sect.196:

196.--

 

(1) Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.

 

(2) Any notice required or authorisd by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor

 

(3) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

 

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned through the post-office undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just keep this simple for a minute and clear the complexities first:

 

Cabot do not act as a debt collection 'agency' they buy debt en-bloc...If they were an agency then they get 10% +/- based upon the value of the outstanding debt they are collecting against, they do not get ownership of the rights to the debt or anything like it, they just take a commission on the debt itself - or more spefically in this case - The Arrears which are due.

 

When Cabot buy debt the debt is Assigned to them and when a debt is assigned then the account as far as the OC is concerned and the LOP is closed. The Default would have happened earlier and when sold removed from the CRA and Cabot register their DN when they take the debt on. If the OC left their Default then they need to remedy that fast or suffer the fact that your credit history may be wrongfully affected. The Deed of Assignment has to be sent to you by both the OC and Cabot, check this thoroughly. These cannot be called ' Arrears unless Cabot are continuing to carry out the functions of the original contract, the rights, duties and all contractual obligations under the original contract - which they don't, so this cannot be referred to as arrears, they bought the account in toto so if they are asking for all the monies then they are pulling a fast one and need reminding they are... Geez, do they never learn?

 

Have they begun charging you their 12% interest rates yet? Let me know if they have and that is a part of their claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just keep this simple for a minute and clear the complexities first:

 

Cabot do not act as a debt collection 'agency' they buy debt en-bloc...If they were an agency then they get 10% +/- based upon the value of the outstanding debt they are collecting against, they do not get ownership of the rights to the debt or anything like it, they just take a commission on the debt itself - or more spefically in this case - The Arrears which are due.

 

When Cabot buy debt the debt is Assigned to them and when a debt is assigned then the account as far as the OC is concerned and the LOP is closed. The Default would have happened earlier and when sold removed from the CRA and Cabot register their DN when they take the debt on. If the OC left their Default then they need to remedy that fast or suffer the fact that your credit history may be wrongfully affected. The Deed of Assignment - NO , Not the DEED the NOTICE of Assignment, sorry!....has to be sent to you by both the OC and Cabot, check this thoroughly. These cannot be called ' Arrears unless Cabot are continuing to carry out the functions of the original contract, the rights, duties and all contractual obligations under the original contract - which they don't, so this cannot be referred to as arrears, they bought the account in toto so if they are asking for all the monies then they are pulling a fast one and need reminding they are... Geez, do they never learn?

 

Have they begun charging you their 12% interest rates yet? Let me know if they have and that is a part of their claim.

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just keep this simple for a minute and clear the complexities first:

 

Cabot do not act as a debt collection 'agency' they buy debt en-bloc...If they were an agency then they get 10% +/- based upon the value of the outstanding debt they are collecting against, they do not get ownership of the rights to the debt or anything like it, they just take a commission on the debt itself - or more spefically in this case - The Arrears which are due.

 

When Cabot buy debt the debt is Assigned to them and when a debt is assigned then the account as far as the OC is concerned and the LOP is closed. The Default would have happened earlier and when sold removed from the CRA and Cabot register their DN when they take the debt on. If the OC left their Default then they need to remedy that fast or suffer the fact that your credit history may be wrongfully affected. The Deed of Assignment has to be sent to you by both the OC and Cabot, check this thoroughly. These cannot be called ' Arrears unless Cabot are continuing to carry out the functions of the original contract, the rights, duties and all contractual obligations under the original contract - which they don't, so this cannot be referred to as arrears, they bought the account in toto so if they are asking for all the monies then they are pulling a fast one and need reminding they are... Geez, do they never learn?

 

Have they begun charging you their 12% interest rates yet? Let me know if they have and that is a part of their claim.

 

Yes 12% interest is being applied.

 

There has been no statements from Cabot as part of the duties of the lender and the first statement only came during disclosure.

 

S

Link to post
Share on other sites

THanks for all your help given folks it definately assisted in court today. However the matter has been adjourned until January due to defence and disclosure issues.

 

I will keep you all informed how I get on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Id say....not another I hope

 

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

Sometimes manchesteruni posters are not what they appear to be and Cabot and other DCAs regularly monitor these forums and pretend to be genuine seekers of advice. However, the Fan Club has all its antennae twitching and can spot 'em a mile off.

 

They are often trying to trap you into giving details away or posing with a similar case to one that's at a vital stage to see if you can give them some idea of the argument. We're onto them. And Shaaan here may or may not be one such and we are very happy to be proven wrong which is why DonkeyB has asked "what are the issues"?

 

Their modus operandus is to post details of supposed cases, asking for help. Sometimes they even add the odd document but, let's be honest anyone can add a document with personal details edited out (or redacted as we all now like to say) and pretend to be that person.

 

The Cabot Fan Club frequently gets PMs from such and we are happy to give them the same advice we would give anyone on open forums. However keep your wits about you as they're here, they're there, there every flipping where. So stay alert!

 

Shaaan please give us details of your case and we'll be happy to help you as much as we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rhia,

I hope this is not what you suspect.

I will certainly be more careful with who I try to help, even with my limited ability.

However, thinking about it, I wouldn't put anything past these snakes.

Come on Shaarn, restore my faith in human nature.

Rhia, any chance of running your eye over my thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280050-Help-with-Cabot-Set-aside-hearing.&highlight=pabrmu

Edited by pabrmu
Link to post
Share on other sites

oh right. Have to say I can't see anything that suggest that. And surely if they were a 'plant' they would be saying they lost in order to discourage people trying it themselves ? Shaarn has another thread on here about the same case too with copies of the illegible agreement on which probably gives a bit more info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let's see shall we? The devil being in the detail and all. And Shaarn if you are indeed a real person then do accept my apologies and ask the site team to merge the numerous threads you have started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...