Cabot/morgan Claimform Morgan stanley card debt **struck out**

[Hadituptohere]

I bet a criminal solicitor would like to get his teeth into this one. These rascals need seeing-to.

 

 

If only we could afford one and and one was available, im finding it hard to juggle and scared of dropping the balls all over the floor, thanks god for this site.....

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

 

Post up a draft applic. over the weekend if you can & we can all input if necessary.

 

 

I wish I could.. the first weekend working away for months and its probably at the most critical point, sods law..

 

Hadituptohere

[Meldrew]

Just found the post stating you had an unless order in place ...

Oops - I missed that too.

 

Even better, though - no form filling, no fee, maybe no hearing.

... the first weekend working away for months and its probably at the most critical point, sods law.

No worries - as fg suggests in #275, just write a brief letter to the court. Head up with the case Nº & title and say you wish to bring to the court's attention that the claimant has failed to comply with Judge Wotsit's order dated 32nd Octember 2010 (identifying the relevant part/s of the order) and ask that the court exercises its power under CPR 3.4(2)© to strike out the claimant's statement of case, with a costs order under 3.4(3). Then drop it into the court office and get a receipt - best is the court's date-stamp on a photocopy of your letter. Job done. If time is short, you could ask the court if they'll accept your letter by fax. No need to copy to Cabot or Morgans.

 

Then you can think about your counter-attack (see #271). Read Durkin very carefully to see what evidence you'll need to prove that erroneous CRA reports caused real financial loss.

 

Have you checked your household insurance for legal expenses cover?

[Meldrew]

... with a costs order under 3.4(3).

... but don't forget your N260 for costs!

 

Chuck in everything that you've spent in connection with this case, starting from the first intimation of court action. Include all time spent reading up, looking at websites, downloading info, travelling, postage, copying and all fees paid - see the "N260" link in #271 for more info. If you haven't worked it all out in detail, use estimates and say "subject to correction".

Edited May 15, 2010 by Meldrew
Wrong quote extract

[Hadituptohere]

Thanks again Meldrew, gladly Job called off till next weekend after a wasted trip, Just checked our home insurance and it states Family Legal Protection 50000.00

 

Hadituptohere

[foolishgirl]

Thanks again Meldrew, gladly Job called off till next weekend after a wasted trip, Just checked our home insurance and it states Family Legal Protection 50000.00

 

Hadituptohere

 

Don't be too upbeat on this one. It's worth a phone call but sometimes insurance will only pay if you inform them at the start of the action. BTW if they do agree, you don't have to accept their sols (whatever they say!!) you can choose your own.

[Hadituptohere]

Wouldnt the action only start upon me being the claimant? As you have said its worth a phone call, thanks for the heads up on which sol too im sure they would try and get me to use there prefered sol.

 

Hadituptohere

[foolishgirl]

Wouldnt the action only start upon me being the claimant?

 

I thought you were defending an action hadit?

[Hadituptohere]

 

Other aspects to consider are:

 

• Counter-claim against Cabot for publishing inaccurate and potentially libellous personal data - Cabot would have to prove the debt reported to CRAs actually existed. Ask for general damages following the Kpohraror case - £5k in 1996 should be approaching £10k now - see para.117of the Durkin judgement.
  
• Recover everything you paid to Cabot - in whatever guise - on the basis that only the creditor (including any proper assignee/s under CCA 74) is entitled to repayment under the credit agreement. Include compound interest at the rate/s you were charged - probably in the region of 15-25% p.a.
  
• Misrepresentation by Cabot pretending to be entitled to payment,
  

... and you'll have that villa on Barbados before you knew it.

 

"Aha", they'll say, "you do owe the money, 'cos you spent on the card - gotcha!". True, but you certainly don't owe it to Cabot. "Well, the fact that you paid us £50/month for years means you accepted we were the creditor and entitled to repayment". But you only paid 'cos they untruthfully led you to believe you should - that was coercion. I bet a criminal solicitor would like to get his teeth into this one. These rascals need seeing-to.

sorry foolishgirl this is where I was considering using the insurance cover

[foolishgirl]

OK - get it. However if you issued this as a counterclaim, I think the insurers would say it was part of the claim made against you & that has already been in progress some time.

 

Of course, nothing to stop you issuing a new claim against them when you see the outcome of this one & that may be covered. You're not going to save anything in fees as you would still have to pay to submit a counterclaim at this stage & if it progresses on its own merit (i.e. Cabot claim dropped against you) I think you would also be liable for a hearing fee.

[Meldrew]

... BUT - whatever you do, check all the relevant facts first - its easy for a case to fail on a misapprehension or misreading of something significant.

Had a peek back over this thread, and thinking ahead a bit...

 

Just a quick clarification hadit: is the Barclays/Cabot Europe agreement in #252 meant to be the Deed of Assignment between Providian and Cabot UK referred to at 4.1 of Morgans' response in #198?

 

If not -

 

• how & when did you get the #252 doc?
  
• where is the Providian/UK DoA Morgans refer to? - haven't seen it posted (unless I missed it).
  

 

This would become important if the non-compliance strike-out fails and you need to fall back on the strategy in #260.

[Hadituptohere]

Hi Meldrew

 

Yes this is the document sent marked exhibit D in the CRP 18 request for further information reply. just going to post Morgans witness statement for checking as it mention's cabot uk and financial a little.

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Witness statement

 

 

 

Hadituptohere

[Meldrew]

Witness statement

Is that it? Only 2 pages? No signature? No Statement of Truth? Or maybe the rest of it is irrelevant/repetitive?

So, within the Cabot Group, Cabot UK is intended as the creditor and debt owner, and Cabot Europe merely UK's debt collector. Europe then uses Morgans for the heavy legal stuff on behalf of UK (I'm sure this must be common knowledge to many here).

 

In that case,

... they could well have shot their foot completely off by releasing this document.[the #252 agreement, not the WS]

... well & truly amputated!!

I bet Cabot Group is really just one bloke in a cupboard somewhere who keeps swapping hats with different names on (to remind him who he's meant to be at that point), and getting himself thoroughly confused in the process.

[Hadituptohere]

Lol yes there was one more page that contains the Statement of Truth that is it. It has been proved on this site that the different members of staff within cabot do have several job titles depending on which hat they have on that day.

 

Hadituptohere

[Meldrew]

Had a peek back over this thread, and thinking ahead a bit...

I also see that at 3.0 of the amended PoC in #160, Cabot UK says it "is and was at all material times the Assignee of the debt incurred by the Defendant on her Goldfish Bank Bank Limited Credit Card Account ("Goldfish")". What's that to do with the Providian/Monument/Barclaycard A/C? And - more importantly - how did Cabot find out about your gender reassignment?

 

More confusion?

[Hadituptohere]

Letter to the court done ready to hand deliver along with the N170 & N260 tomorrow, I've also copied Document D and included that, in the letter ive also reminded the judge of the none compliance of the court order.

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

I also see that at 3.0 of the amended PoC in #160, Cabot UK says it "is and was at all material times the Assignee of the debt incurred by the Defendant on her Goldfish Bank Bank Limited Credit Card Account ("Goldfish")". What's that to do with the Providian/Monument/Barclaycard A/C? And - more importantly - how did Cabot find out about your gender reassignment?

 

More confusion?

 

More Morgans incompetence ....and ive just checked on my gender and its still there and is perfectly fine....

 

Hadituptohere

[foolishgirl]

So, within the Cabot Group, Cabot UK is intended as the creditor and debt owner, and Cabot Europe merely UK's debt collector.

 

... well & truly amputated!!

 

Cut off at the armpits, meldrew, 'cos in the WS it states that Cabot UK have no employees so who signs as assignee of the debts??

I also see that at 3.0 of the amended PoC in #160, Cabot UK says it "is and was at all material times the Assignee of the debt incurred by the Defendant on her Goldfish Bank Bank Limited Credit Card Account ("Goldfish")". What's that to do with the Providian/Monument/Barclaycard A/C? And - more importantly - how did Cabot find out about your gender reassignment?

 

 

Goldfish???

 

ive just checked on my gender and its still there and is perfectly fine....

:D:D This could prove interesting in court!!

[Meldrew]

...and ive just checked on my gender and its still there and is perfectly fine....

:lol: Edited May 16, 2010 by Meldrew
Misquote (again!)

[Meldrew]

Letter to the court done ready to hand deliver along with the N170 & N260 tomorrow, I've also copied Document D and included that, in the letter ive also reminded the judge of the none compliance of the court order.

Do you need to include Exhibit D (I'm guessing it's the #252 doc?) - what would you use it for?

 

Surely your argument for the Unless order strike-out should be that Cabot UK failed to let you see the docs that you'd specified, by 5 May (per #235)? It seems from #208 that you wanted to see -

(i) the CCA (Cabot/Morgans previously said they didn't have T&Cs) and

(ii) the NoA (which they copied to you in Nov 09 - see #143).

That's all. Exh.D would only be relevant if you'd asked to see the DoA.

 

If you hadn't asked to see Exh.D I think producing it at this stage would only cloud the issue. You'd only need it if the strike-out fails - to show that it's not the Providian/Cabot UK DoA at 4.1 in #198.

 

BUT - the strategy in #260 relies on you accepting Exh.D as a valid DoA, thereby making the CCA agreement unenforceable.

 

Food for thought, at least, 'cos only you have all the relevant docs and can see the full picture...

[Hadituptohere]

Sorry I should have explained my letter, On the 6th May I wrote to the court explaining that morgans had failed to repond to my request to view original doc's as per court order dated 19th April, so the letter I have draughted reminds the DJ that they have failed to comply with the court order but also includes new evidence found 'Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd Issued claim but under disclosure via CPR18 request for further information morgans have produced Exhibit D as there DOA which clearly shows its between Barclay's and Cabot (Europe), I was going to enclose the document D as evidence for ease for the judge, my letter then requsets strike out via CPR as advised.

 

Hope this makes some sense

 

Hadituptohere

Edited May 16, 2010 by Hadituptohere
poor spelling (thats been spotted)

[Hadituptohere]

Ive just found my letter dated the 6th May I sent regarding the failure to comply with the court order, in that letter ive already requested a strike out under CPR3.4,2( c) and costs to be summarily assessed.

 

So I guess a phone call in the morning to see whats happening regarding this letter if anything?

 

Hadituptohere

[foolishgirl]

I'm with meldrew hadit - think you may be in danger of overloading & confusing a poor DJ's mind. Keep it simple - ask for your strike out for non-compliance of court orders & if that fails, bring this lot up as part of a thorough defence, ws etc.

[Hadituptohere]

Ok cool ill ring the court tomorrow for an update, ill hand deliver the N170 as its due tomorrow also. as for thorough defence and WS they have already gone in but didnt include the recent evidence found.

 

Hadituptohere