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

[Brassed off]

Sorry will have to come back to you all tomorrow - just had yet more bad news on the personal front...

[cups]

Hi BO

 

In my case they said that the OC had zero'd my account and then sold it on, so that the full amount that they p[assed on to Cabot was all arrears so that is why no DN,,

 

Cups

[the_shadow]

Hi BO

 

In my case they said that the OC had zero'd my account and then sold it on, so that the full amount that they p[assed on to Cabot was all arrears so that is why no DN,,

 

Cups

 

haha did they actually put that in writing?

 

S.

[cups]

Hi

 

They gave it in evidence and got a judgement against me for it,,DJ lottery wins!!

 

I did argue but got nowhere, l actually found a DN, that was defective,,still got against me,

 

Cups

[gh2008]

Hi

 

They gave it in evidence and got a judgement against me for it,,DJ lottery wins!!

 

I did argue but got nowhere, l actually found a DN, that was defective,,still got against me,

 

Cups

 

So what were your arguments against it?

[andrew1]

Actually, this seems like a new twist which I haven't properly got my head around yet. Cabot are arguing that they are only seeking the arrears, not the Account / debt and have only purchased the arrears. If the OC's are zeroing off the debt in their books how can they sell nothing afterwards? This seems like a new ploy and we need a legal whiz to understand the full implications here. Damned DCA's always come up with some new [problem] don't they? I'll get the Fan Club onto this one too.... One thing cabot should have learned by now ' Ya don't feck with the Cabot Fan Club! '

[PriorityOne]

Actually, this seems like a new twist which I haven't properly got my head around yet. Cabot are arguing that they are only seeking the arrears, not the Account / debt and have only purchased the arrears. If the OC's are zeroing off the debt in their books how can they sell nothing afterwards? This seems like a new ploy and we need a legal whiz to understand the full implications here. Damned DCA's always come up with some new [problem] don't they? I'll get the Fan Club onto this one too.... One thing cabot should have learned by now ' Ya don't feck with the Cabot Fan Club! '

 

It's too ridiculous to be true, isn't it?! I remember a certain OC responding to a SAR with details that one of my own accounts had been set to a zero balance.... and I more or less responded with "If you say so, thanks". It was flogged out shortly afterwards and has remained unenforceable (no CCA) for nearly 4 years now.

 

They can't have it both ways. IMO, there's either a balance or there isn't and if there isn't, then any arrears are pure fiction.

 

[Rhia]

Yes Andrew1 you are quite right it's a new trick. They keep losing cases so keep twisting the law to suit themselves. Cabot has a couple of solicitors - one's a director and the other is Morgan of Morgan's fame and I suspect they keep hatching up novice ways to change the game.

 

I think they are using contract law here to try to avoid the need for a DN but this agreement is regulated under the CCA 1974 (and as such the 2006 amendments on unenforceability don't apply). Have asked Bo to post up new POC so we'll see more when it arrives but I'm certain the OC would have issued a DN and if they have it will scupper these eejits.

 

The Judge appears to be on to them too if his order is anything to go by.

 

Which brings us back to the whole ethos of the DCA business. Someone really needs to expose just how a debt - which has been written off to UK tax - is then purchased for peanuts and the DCA thinks they are entitled to the lot plus even more invented interest. Furthermore these peanut debts are often assigned offshore for "tax efficiencies. They are just complete chancers.

[pabrmu]

Hi all,

I am awaiting a letter regarding this very point. I have asked if my account is still live as they are only asking for "arrears" or if it was terminated. I have said that if it is still live, why have I not been receiving statements and if it is terminated, why no DN or TN.

This new twist is interesting and would like to find out where they stand in law on this point.

[gh2008]

Hi all,

I am awaiting a letter regarding this very point. I have asked if my account is still live as they are only asking for "arrears" or if it was terminated. I have said that if it is still live, why have I not been receiving statements and if it is terminated, why no DN or TN.

This new twist is interesting and would like to find out where they stand in law on this point.

 

Yes, that's my line with them - yet to see a definitive reply from them - should be interesting.

 

I would also be *very* interested in "zeroed off" I *think* they mean credit limit reduced to zero - in which case this is an old tactic of theirs.

 

They still cannot get round the fact that in order to terminate an account they need a DN. If the account has not been terminated then they (or someone at least) needs to comply with the CCA for a running account

 

jmho

[Rhia]

Has Bo added this to a new Part 18 as you have been saying this for some time gh2008?

[gh2008]

It's too ridiculous to be true, isn't it?! I remember a certain OC responding to a SAR with details that one of my own accounts had been set to a zero balance.... and I more or less responded with "If you say so, thanks". It was flogged out shortly afterwards and has remained unenforceable (no CCA) for nearly 4 years now.

 

They can't have it both ways. IMO, there's either a balance or there isn't and if there isn't, then any arrears are pure fiction.

 

 

I've got one of those issued by one of the HSBC group - amalgamated all the accounts together £12k then made a write off entry ending up with a balance of £0 - Thank you very much

A treasured statement that one ...

 

Has Bo added this to a new Part 18 as you have been saying this for some time gh2008?

 

hopefully yes - it will be interesting the 'word games' used in the reply although they will have had long enough to prepare as they monitor these forums like hawks these days.......

[andrew1]

"as they monitor these forums like hawks these days.......

 

ha-ha, good, then they'll know they've been sussed and they will think very carefully about what they do or they'll be adding another 20k to their legal bill like they did with mine...

[Rhia]

8)

 

They don't just monitor them we've found a few imposters posting.

[gh2008]

"as they monitor these forums like hawks these days.......

 

ha-ha, good, then they'll know they've been sussed and they will think very carefully about what they do or they'll be adding another 20k to their legal bill like they did with mine...

 

They've done the reverse with this one - said total legal bill is £1k now the only reason I can come up with for that is to try and pull the wool over people's eye's into capping Bo's costs @ £600 ...

[Brassed off]

Apologies for not posting sooner. Had a 'mare with amended POCs so I've had to type the whole lot out!

 

 

IN THE XXXXXXXXXX COUNTY COURT

 

CLAIM NO: XXXXXXXXX

 

CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LTD – Claimant

 

And

 

XXXXX XXXXXXX – Defendant

 

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Claimant is and was at all material times a purchaser of debt.

 

2. On XX December 1999 the Defendant entered into a written agreement (“the contract”) with Hitachi Nova (“the Assignor”). The contract is an agreement for fixed sum credit and is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the Act”). A copy of the contract is attached marked ‘A’.

 

3. Under the terms of the contract the Assignor was to provide £X,XXX.XX as a loan to the Defendant for the purchase of a computer.

 

4. It was an express prescribed term of the contract that the Total Charge for Credit would be £XXX.XX. The total amount payable by the Defendant under the contract was therefore £X,XXX.XX, being the cumulative amount of the Total Charge for Credit and the Loan. The monies under the contract were duly provided on or around XXX May 2000.

 

5. The contract also contained an express prescribed term specifying how the Defendant would repay the total amount payable (“the repayment term”). The Defendant was to re-pay by way of 48 monthly instalments of £XX.XX.

 

6. The Defendant has breached the repayment term.

 

PARTICULARS OF BREACH

In breach of the repayment term the Defendant:

 

(i) Failed to pay the instalment of £XX.XX due under the contract on around around XXX May 2002.

(ii) Failed to pay any instalment due under the contract or failed to make any payment at all for the period between XXX May 2002 and XXX April 2006.

(iii) Has made only 23 payments out of the 48 payments prescribed, pursuant to the repayment term.

(iv) Has failed to pay the 25 remaining payments prescribed, pursuant to the repayment term.

(v) Has failed to pay the accrued arrears on the account.

 

7. As a result of the Defendant’s breach of contract, the Claimant has suffered loss, having become entitled to the claimed sum for the reasons outlined below and the Defendant having failed to remedy her breach of the repayment term.

 

PARTICULARS OF ENTITLEMENT

 

7.1 On XXX September 2003 the Assignor legally assigned all of its rights, title and interest under the contract with the Defendant, to the Claimant. The amount assigned to the Claimant was the arrears of £X,XXX.XX.

7.2 On XXX September 2003 Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant by sending the same by ordinary post, to the Defendant by sending the same by ordinary post, to the Defendant’s last known address namely XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

7.3 The Claimant has applied interest to the Defendant’s account at a rate of 12% per annum. Having acquired rights, title and interest under the contract the Claimant was entitled to apply the contractual rate of interest which is higher. The total amount of interest applied by the Claimant is £X,XXX.XX.

7.4 Since assignment the Defendant has failed to remedy her breach of the repayment term. The Defendant has made a total payment of £XXX.XX to the Claimant. The Claimant has received no payment from the Defendant since XXXX September 2007.

7.5 For the foregoing reasons the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £X,XXX.XX , being the arrears and interest due in relation to the Defendant’s account.

 

AND the Claimant claims:

 

(i) £X,XXX.XX being the outstanding monies due,

(ii) Interest under Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1964 in the sum of £XX.XX to the date hereof and thereafter accruing at £X.XX per day until Judgment.

(iii) Costs.

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I believe the fact stated in this Particulars of Claim are true and I am duly authorised to sign this statement of truth.

 

Signed:

 

Name: XXX XXXXXXXX

Position: Litigation Associate

Dated: XXXX October 2010

 

They've attached the Agreement and all the paperwork they provided me with so far.

 

I've rung the court today and have been told that the Judge is preparing an order for me to submit an amended Defence within two weeks.

[gh2008]

When was your last S78 on this account? post assignment? who was the creditor on that agreement?

 

imho you need to blow gaping holes in their POC wherever you can that's one for starters as any response to an S79 should have the creditors name & address - well if they have bought it lock, stock & barrel then their name should appear ...

 

Agreement headed wrongly

TCC & TAP are both wrong, but only by 4p - but they are prescribed terms

No remedies statement - esp. important considering the goods were faulty & Bo didn't realise the lender was jointly liable (seller went bust iirc)

 

Is there an 'easily legible' copy of the T&Cs yet? - if not they cannot get a judgement against (as long as you did do an S79)

 

Is there any term *anywhere* for them to add interest over and above the 'total amount payable' where in the agreement is the TAP variable upon breach?

Bear in mind the APR 19.9% IS NOT a rate of interest for the agreement. It is purely a cost of borrowing indicator.

The APR would remain the same whether the 892.42 was added at the outset in one lump as a fee or whether it was added daily as interest etc.

That blows contractual interest out

 

S69 interest is not applicable on agreements where there is already an applicable interest rate.

A CCA by its definition has a rate of interest (even if it's 0) therefore S69 does not apply (I think it's S69(4) for the quote)

 

My thoughts so far and all jmho as always

[Brassed off]

When was your last S78 on this account? post assignment? who was the creditor on that agreement?

 

 

 

Last CCA request was post assignment gh. The Creditor was Nova Retail Finance.

 

imho you need to blow gaping holes in their POC wherever you can that's one for starters as any response to an S79 should have the creditors name & address - well if they have bought it lock, stock & barrel then their name should appear ...

 

 

Didn't think about that - cheers!

 

Agreement headed wrongly

TCC & TAP are both wrong, but only by 4p - but they are prescribed terms

No remedies statement - esp. important considering the goods were faulty & Bo didn't realise the lender was jointly liable (seller went bust iirc)

 

Is there an 'easily legible' copy of the T&Cs yet? - if not they cannot get a judgement against (as long as you did do an S79)

 

 

No, still no T&Cs from '99 at all but I noticed on the Cabot SAR that they had requested them from Hitachi Nova.

 

Is there any term *anywhere* for them to add interest over and above the 'total amount payable' where in the agreement is the TAP variable upon breach?

 

 

I don't know as I still haven't seen T&Cs.

 

Bear in mind the APR 19.9% IS NOT a rate of interest for the agreement. It is purely a cost of borrowing indicator.

The APR would remain the same whether the 892.42 was added at the outset in one lump as a fee or whether it was added daily as interest etc.

That blows contractual interest out

 

S69 interest is not applicable on agreements where there is already an applicable interest rate.

 

 

Yes, that bit's stuck thanks.

 

A CCA by its definition has a rate of interest (even if it's 0) therefore S69 does not apply (I think it's S69(4) for the quote)

 

My thoughts so far and all jmho as always

 

And very valid ones too gh.

 

Part 18 going off tomorrow honestly !

[gh2008]

clear your Inbox/Sent folder Bo .....

[Brassed off]

Sorry gh - cleared

[Brassed off]

I'm still awaiting a response to my last Part 18 from Morgans. My defence was due tomorrow and I can't finalise it without their reply. I've contacted the court who've said that I need to fill in an N244 and pay £40. I've downloaded the form but I'm a bit stuck as it asks whether I've attached a draft order. Do I need to do a draft order or can I simply fill in the box to ask for an extension of time to file my defence due to not receiving a response to my last Part 18 request?

 

TIA

[gh2008]

You could always write a letter to the Court Manager. They will probably write back telling you to apply for an extension, but by then you would hope to have a reply.

 

Worst case is that the DJ orders you to submit a defence or else, then you would have to apply anyway. You have already submitted a defence anyway so there is no chance of Default Judgement

 

Your app would be for compliance with the Part 18 request as well. (when is/was their time up)

 

If you do want to apply then a draft order would just be in pretty much the same format as the one you already have with wording something like

 

1. Unless the claimant serves a full reply to the defendant's Part 18 request of ##/##/#### by ##/##/####

the claim will be struck out without further order

 

The defendant will file and serve an amended and fully particularised defence by (14 days after the date above)

[Brassed off]

Hi gh

 

The 7 days I gave them was up on Monday, they received my Part 18 by recorded delivery on 1st November and I still haven't had a reply.

 

I'll do the draft order as you've said thanks.

 

Will let you know how it goes

[PriorityOne]

Any updates for us Bo?

[Brassed off]

No updates yet P1 - hoping there will be one in the next week or so