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

[Fester Tester]

See FB PM.

[Fester Tester]

I'm a little confused. They say they are only chasing arrears? Really? So in other words, they don't contend that the agreement has been terminated. I'm not so sure about that, but mebbes some kind expert will pop along to advise on that point.

 

Apart from that, it seems they are aware that they don't have a leg to stand on without an agreement.

 

It seems a rather strange letter to send, in light of the fact that they have started proceedings. The success of which obviously, must now be in some considerable doubt without access to an agreement.

 

Yes, I'd be pretty embarrassed to be taken to court where the claimant has not a shred of proof that you owe anything.

[Fester Tester]

Nope, if there are no T&C's along with the document they sent, it hardly constututes an "agreement". I think they are anticipating your argument.

[Fester Tester]

Bear in mind that all Cabot has to do to make an assignment absolute, is to issue a Notice of Assignment.

 

To be honest, the whole equitable/absolute argument is something of a red herring. To concentrate too much on this, is to perhaps miss the main points.

[Fester Tester]

Not one person AFAIK has as yet gone into court and successfully defended on the basis of ineffective service of a NoA. The best you could expect is a postponement of the inevitable.

 

This is why I say it is a red herring and more energy needs TO BE CONCENTRATED IN OTHER AREAS.

[Fester Tester]

Cabot do not become the creditor - they only buy the receivables (or rights) they do not buy the account or the duties, those remain with the OC

 

If you say so, but it doesn't really matter. Can we drop this, as it's not helpful in getting a defence prepared?

[Fester Tester]

It would appear so far that there are a couple of issues here.

 

Firstly, as BO has already intimated somewhere but I can't find offhand, there may be charges applied by the OC, to which they were not entitled.

 

Secondly, Cabot have absolutely no right whatsoever to be adding their own 12% interest rate. And if I understand correctly, they are seeking to have a statutory 8% added on top of that.

 

I do think that, whilst there does not seem to be an actual defence against the fact that BO is liable to repay A debt, I certainly don't think that Cabot are entitled to the amount that they have claimed.

 

So in a sense, that is defense enough. Except I don't think it would end there. So I think the best plan is to look carefully at the figures, and try to calculate what might be a more reasonable liability. Have you got statements from Cabot, BO?

 

Morally of course, since the bloody computer never worked properly in the first place, this is all bolleaux and the OC should have sorted all this out ages ago. But we're talking pre-CAG and similar forum days, and so we need to accept that the consumer savviness (is that a word?) was pretty much non existent back then.