Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Incidentally, congratulations on not buying the warranty. That is another Big Motoring World rip-off. See what we have to say about extended warranties and the Big Motoring World attitude to them is particularly unhelpful
    • well that google is from 2019, but the photos are certainly of someone driving on the public highway in/out by an ANP system, though the site of where the camera actually is, is not showing there are anpr cameras up by the low yellow barriers but they wont get from facing shots from there. interesting, needs to be checked if the road IS a public highway but on private land, cause as you say, if the whole area is max 4hrs , how does the hotel work< ?? must have a reg entry system.  now as for taking pictures of cars on a public highway then guessing the are parking ...erm.... i dont thnk thats right nor allowed under GDPR. dx  
    • Under the consumer rights act 2015, if a defect manifests itself within 30 days and you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund. If any defect manifests itself within the first six months of ownership then you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund subject to the retailers right to carry out a repair. If the retailer declines to repair or if the repair fails then you have the right to return. The problem here is that you have to assert their right. It's a bit ridiculous – but you have to do let them know preferably in writing that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act either the 30 day right or the six month right. I suppose that you haven't done this – which would be quite understandable because most people don't know that these rights exist and that they are subject to these conditions – the condition that the right must be inserted. It is frankly ridiculous. The dealers know it and we have lots of instances of this company delaying appointments et cetera and our strong suspicion is that they are simply trying to run their customers out of time. On the basis that you haven't asserted your rights, we now have to look to ordinary contract law. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory condition and which remains that way for a reasonable period of time. Clearly it is in satisfactory. They are blaming you. Has your independent inspection identified the reason for the defect? This will be important because as you have seen BMW are already saying it is down to your driving and you are going to have to produce evidence that it wasn't down to your driving and the you drove it absolutely reasonably and it was simply the condition of the car. Have you been without the car for any period of time. Is it driveable now? If the car was off the road for a substantial amount of time and was still off the road then you would be able to argue that this is a fundamental breach of contract and that you have been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract and therefore you will be entitled to treat the contract as breached by Big Motoring World and insist on cancelling the contract. It may be that you will eventually be obliged to keep the car but have the repairs paid for. Have you had any quotations for the work that needs doing? I asked you questions about the MOT – but you haven't responded.
    • A 'violent left wing mob', comprised of a chap in a red hoody with a damp polystyrene coffee cup and a bit of wet cement, gets nowhere near cowering frightened farage some distance away on top of his double decker bus .. as farages security and support seem to film the incident grinning     Farage bravely flinches, grimaces and seems to almost burst into tears as the 'objects managed to travel a part of the way toward his position on top of his bus. His reactions honed by having a bit of milk splash him at a prior incident allow him to swiftly fall into a protective cower and grimace .. .. Sometime after, once the mob of 1 had been safely bundled away, farage apparently wipes his eyes of tears, and rising from his cowed and frightened pose, bravely shouts “I will not be bullied or cowed by a violent left-wing mob who hate our country.” .. however few they may comprise of.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nigel-farage-cement-barnsley-reform-uk-b2560501.html  
    • According to Parkopedia parking is limited to two hours.  I don't know how accurate this is though. What were you doing there for four hours?
  • 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

County Court Claim form received - Cabot ***WON***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3900 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

Ok, so they are saying that the account is live AND more importantly they are the creditor.

 

GH I dont believe they are claiming this.. the agreement is a fixed term agreement of 48 months from execution which was in 99 I believe.

 

Hence they are claiming the full amount as arrears as the period of repaying the whole amount whilst not due(within that 48 months) (a s87 default situation) is not occurring.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If the account is not live, how can there be arrears??

 

They have stated that they have NOT terminated the account - if the account is not terminated then what is it ......

 

Cabot can't have it both ways - either the account is terminated - or it is not ...

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the account is not live, how can there be arrears??

 

They have stated that they have NOT terminated the account - if the account is not terminated then what is it ......

 

Cabot can't have it both ways - either the account is terminated - or it is not ...

 

This is their and other cases I have seen on here's argument; that because the period of the fixed term contract (48 months) from 1999 is passed, everything is now classed as arrears, it would only be a s87 default if they were attempting to claim something which is not due... which now is not the case. Hence their claim that a default is not needed nor will be relied on.

 

I think youre right about the termination/not terminated tho.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate there NOT being a need for a DN (I was arguing that point a while ago)

but only IF and that is a big IF the account has NOT been terminated. IF the account is not terminated then by assumption it is still live. As Cabot have bought the account (rather than the debt or the receivables) then they ARE THE CREDITOR.

 

IF the account is not live then at some stage is has been terminated and therefore a DN was required as the account was in default.

 

Now, if the account was not terminated then the creditor (now Cabot) have certain responsibilities under the CCA ad if they do not fulfil those they are unable to enforce .....

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very interesting and odd. What if the OC had issued a DN and it's just that Cabot can't produce a copy? Would this make any difference to their stance in claiming arrears as to my way of thinking if a SAR - just as a for example - could show DN was issued by the OC then Cabot couldn't claim arrears could they?

 

If no DN then as gh2008 states they should be producing statements and complying fully with the terms of the agreement. In other words the only difference to the debtor should be a different name on the statements etc.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly :)

 

(Although, of course there was a DN and presumably a TN - the former being defective and therefore invalid. So Cabot are trying to be 'clever')

 

An S79 request should bring back the required info as to teh current creditor and state of the account.

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Said this many times before but Cabot and "clever" aren't words which go together. Without looking back Bo did you SAR the original creditor? If so have a good look for evidence of a DN or a TN in their records.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly :)

 

So Cabot are trying to be 'clever'

 

 

They won't succeed in trying to be clever, they will never succeed, and they should give up trying to succeed.

 

No DN - stuffed! End of.

 

Cabot and Morgans (ex Hodsons Fools) have just spent a phenominal amount of money in legal fees (30k +) on a debt they probably paid about £2k for, against me trying to be clever on a Bank Of Scotland account, but they were up against the might of the amazing Cabot Fan Club and didn't know it.

 

This is vexacious litigation Brassed Off, they should not be persuing cases which they are fully aware are full of holes. Morgans had my account under the careful and intelligent, professional and watchful eye of Ian Lill and very recently they issued a default notice (Morgans did this I repeat :lol: ) to my other half when they realised Cabot hadn't issued one in 2006. Mine was a joint account and cabot only ever issued proceedings and wrote to me. They issued the DN just to try and get this through court. I'll be writing about this in another thread, but if a DCA or Debt Purchaser does not have the correct information to collect a debt they should not be trying to hoodwink or con the debtor and courts into thinking they have - it's deception or maybe even fraud to try to obtain monies or a pecuniary advantage with the wrong documents, so BO - keep it simple, NO DN - go tell Wellie and his Morgan Hodsons fools to take a hike.

 

Also BO - that redacted information is not permitted under the Human Rights Act - get them to supply the whole lot or forget it.

 

This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Cabot Fan Club are out to stamp out, our initial and only aims are to make the Debt Collection Industry abide by the law - not invent their own - So Maynard - watch out, you might be needing your chums in Mischons again to bail you out of your murky little practices. - It either stops or you pay massive legal bills like you did with mine and you will keep on doing so until the message finally reaches your desk.

 

Give up on the likes of Brassed Off's case and give people a break - if you have the right legal documents then fine - sue away, if you don't - then stop breaking the law - see ? KIS Keep It Simple. You might even get another trophy to show off!

 

Go get em BO.

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff fellow CFCer. I have turned this over and over and the only conclusion I can draw is this agreement will have been defaulted by the OC. Therefore a DN must exist. Have you looked at your credit record Bo. If not get on to Experian to start with and see if they are carrying anything. You may have to SAR them too but it could be useful as if they have been registering a DN under the conditions they claim they are in for data protection issues too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey lots of replies on here - apologies for my late posting.

 

Hi Haditup – shot themselves in the foot on their replies to my Part 18s methinks. Originally, they weren’t relying on the Consumer Credit Act but it seems they’ve changed their minds!!

 

Gh – I haven’t been receiving regular statements from Cabot, only an SOA when I’ve requested it.

 

Shadow – they state that they are claiming the arrears but they’ve added their own 12% interest on top and court costs on top of that which doubles the amount originally owed. Without seeing T&Cs from December 1999 how can I possibly know what I agreed to originally?

 

Rhia:-

 

"I'm not so hot on fixed term agreements Shadow. So what would be the case if, say, they had issued a Default Notice?"
I’d like to know the answer to Rhia's question too please Shadow

 

Posted by gh:-

 

Now, if the account was not terminated then the creditor (now Cabot) have certain responsibilities under the CCA and if they do not fulfil those they are unable to enforce .....

 

Agreed!

 

So do I need to CCA Cabot then gh? I’ve already SAR’d them and am still waiting for their promised CD – they don’t have a lot of time left to produce it! Or perhaps another Part 18 request to Morgans?

 

Rhia :-

 

"Said this many times before but Cabot and "clever" aren't words which go together. Without looking back Bo did you SAR the original creditor? If so have a good look for evidence of a DN or a TN in their records."

 

Yes I did SAR the OC originally Rhia. They never fully replied to it though, despite chasing them on several occasions. I’ll see what I can dig out.

 

Andrew:-

 

Hi Andrew

 

I’ve never had a DN from Cabot themselves.

 

What a nightmare for you and your wife. So they continue to pursue even though they know that they don’t have all the correct documentation??

 

Presumably they do this as there may be many people who aren’t aware of their rights like us Caggers.

 

I didn’t know about the redacted information not being permitted under the Human Rights Act. I’ll be reading up on that too thanks. There was a lot more redacted information attached to their reply to my last Part 18.

 

Looking forward to reading about your case too.

 

I feel another Part 18 coming on….

 

Still no T&Cs or DN from Morgans.

 

I haven't checked my credit file recently Rhia but I know from checking it a few years ago, that there is a default registered by Kings Hill. I'll get on to Experian for an up to date copy.

 

Will post up Morgans AQ replies shortly...

 

TIA

 

Bo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brassed off

 

Heres something I thought would be usefull from pt in Karenzas thread

 

I am fighting this company myself, for a client, and the interestlink3.gif point is oone t hey will struggle with, as the contract at the point of assignment transfers to Cabot, therefore, on transfer, you need to establish if it was still live or dead, if they say its still live, then they have to adhere to section 82 CCA 1974 to change the rate of interest and i know they will not have done so, its t heir standard practice to charge 12% without contractual basis

 

Hope this is off use on your battle

 

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

OK, Cabot's AQ response:-

 

This is their response on an N150 (my AQ was on an N149 - not sure how relevant that is):-

 

Brief details:-

 

They want to settle the claim before the hearing.

They want a one month stay to do this.

They don't want the court to arrange a mediation appointment but they will endeavour to give advance disclosure of their evidence and thereafter, mediation might be considered appropriate.

They have said that they haven't complied with the relevant pre-action protocol because there is no pre-action protocol in relation to debt claims. They do however endeavour to comply with the spirit of existing pre-action protocols.

They don't wish to use expert evidence at the trial or final hearing.

They consider the small claims track is suitable for their claim.

They estimate the trial or final hearing will take 2 hours.

Shedloads of days when they are not available !!

Costs incurred to date £110

Estimated overall costs likely to be £1,000

 

I see there have been quite a few "registered Caggers" at the bottom of my thread but despite being registered for around two years, they have still to post.

 

Paranoid? Moi? :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turning in time for me but Cabot gave me a bedtime chuckle. They really are an endless source of merriment...from the word go.

 

Like they'd like to settle. I bet they would.

 

They'd like a month to settle and avoid mediation...I bet they would.

 

And there are no pre action protocols for debt recovery. WTF? Only on Planet Cabot. Let's just briefly explain. You are using the court system to make a claim. Regardless of what that claim is for you are expected to observe pre action protocols as laid down by HM Govt's court service.

 

And just which expert would pop his or her head above the parapet in defence of this old cobblers?

 

Costs - forget them £1k is just to frighten you.

 

Priceless. Just priceless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bo, when you get your disc from Cabot, at the last possible date, it will show a CRA check with all the deefaukts from Cabot, it will also show a land registry check which was carried out before legal action began!

 

Well that'll save me a job then Cymru :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting they only quote costs of £1k :lol: IMHO they are trying to cap YOUR costs to 2/3 of theirs when they lose

The 'normal' costs to this point would be over £3k with £3k the quote for going to the hearing

 

@BO I would seriously consider a Part18 request to clarify the current status of the account.

If it is terminated then when and by whom was it terminated

and if it has not been terminated then who is the current creditor as you wish to see a copy of the current agreement together with all T&Cs.

  • Haha 1

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - there's a few other things that need clarifying too so whilst you have this opportunity get the answers. IMO they are also requesting a stay not - as they state - to negotiate a settlement but because this case is seriously flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting they only quote costs of £1k :lol: IMHO they are trying to cap YOUR costs to 2/3 of theirs when they lose

The 'normal' costs to this point would be over £3k with £3k the quote for going to the hearing

 

@BO I would seriously consider a Part18 request to clarify the current status of the account.

If it is terminated then when and by whom was it terminated

and if it has not been terminated then who is the current creditor as you wish to see a copy of the current agreement together with all T&Cs.

 

I like this!

 

OK, OC SAR’d today. That should be interesting. So to clarify then. Part 18 request for the following:-

 

Current status of account. Terminated or not terminated? If terminated, when and by whom? If not, then who is the current creditor as I wish to see a copy of the current agreement (the one from May 2000) together with all T&Cs and related documents.

 

 

I agree - there's a few other things that need clarifying too so whilst you have this opportunity get the answers. IMO they are also requesting a stay not - as they state - to negotiate a settlement but because this case is seriously flawed.

 

What else should I be requesting Rhia?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received this from the court at the weekend ;-)

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. Unless by XX Oct 2010 the Claimant files full particulars of claim including reference to the original

contract, and if a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act

 

a) a copy of the agreement

b) a statement of account

c) the default notice

d) documentary evidence of the assignment

 

The claim will be struck out

 

2. On compliance by the Claimant with paragraph 1 hereof the Defendant shall send to the Court and to the Claimant

a fully pleaded defence.

 

3. This Order was issued without a hearing, if you object to this order you have 7 days from the date of service of this

order to apply to set aside, or revoke this order.

 

Dated XX September 2010

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like great news Brassed off, fingers and toes crossed for you

 

Looks like another DJ thats feed up of morgans silly antics

 

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...