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

[gh2008]

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 .....

[gh2008]

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.

[gh2008]

Interesting they only quote costs of £1k 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.

[gh2008]

A *Stonking* good Order that one Bo give yourself a pat on the back

[gh2008]

Interesting they only quote costs of £1k 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.

 

My thoughts still stand re a Part18 request ....

 

The account is either

still live - in which case who is the creditor

terminated - in which case when & by whom & where is the DN.

 

If they reply saying it has 'ended', then there are no arrears, as arrears by their definition are only on an active account .... (you can have 'arrears at termination' but not arrears on a terminated account)

[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?

[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

[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.......

[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 ...

[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

[gh2008]

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

[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)