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

[spartathisis]

Congrats, another victory for "The little people"

[Meldrew]

Terrific news hadit - well done!! Perseverance, tenacity & determination are great weapons in pursuit of a good cause.

 

Great news for you.

 

Here's a few more links on costs for you ...

... see also #271 above, and the linked post about using N260 for costs here.

 

As well as invoking Kpohraror and Durkin for general - and maybe special - damages, you also have Mitchell for indemnity costs (#241 above).

 

Cabot's attempted con should prove quite expensive for them!

[foolishgirl]

As well as invoking Kpohraror and Durkin for general - and maybe special - damages,

 

You should look at this thread before you quote Durkin:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/264189-default-damages-supreme-court.html

[Hadituptohere]

Meldrew thank you sooo much for your words of advise, along with many others you have helped me get my thick head around alot of what has being going on with the laymans approach.. really appreciated everyone, still just a little uneasy

 

 

Hadituptohere

[Meldrew]

You should look at this thread before you quote Durkin:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/264189-default-damages-supreme-court.html

Thanks fg - didn't know Durkin had been overturned. Must say, really doesn't look right to me. Makes you wonder if any of the judges actually bothered to look at CCA 74!

 

Nevertheless, the appeal related only to special damages. As Durkin himself says in his #8, in the context of general damages for a creditor's failure to verify a default before reporting it to CRAs,

"I understand that people are using the original judgement to good effect, particularly with removing defaults. I'm very happy about that. This appeal judgement shouldn't affect that.

It confirms that £8K is still available for those that have "validly rescinded" their credit agreement

"

[my emphasis]

.

Also, Kpohraror still applies too for general damages (now ~£10k), and Mitchell for indemnity costs.

 

Don't be disheartened hadit - time to blow the dust off your legal expenses cover and check the small print!

[Hadituptohere]

Don't be disheartened hadit - time to blow the dust off your legal expenses cover and check the small print!

 

Im sat with a coffee and digesting it with a rye smile

[Meldrew]

Im sat with a coffee and digesting it with a rye smile

... toast, I s'pose - it's a bit early for whiskey!!

 

Thinks ... at the end of all this, you might even find Cabot paying off 'er indoors's Abbey/Santander car loan!

[Hadituptohere]

Thinks ... at the end of all this, you might even find Cabot paying off 'er indoors's Abbey/Santander car loan!

 

Now that would be nice

 

Hadituptohere

[ohm]

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

I also have Family Legal Protection 50000 Through Bradford & Bingley.When I phoned for any legal advise or to cover any legal expense, they said debt issues are excluded and no help whatsoever was offered.My case is as follows:Morgan Solicitors have said that Contractual Liabilities and Burdens have not been assigned to Cabot (UK)-was Cabot (Europe) before !!

I joined yesterday and not sure how to use the Forum.I would like to bring the followig new tactic used by Cabot to everybody's attention and look forward to receiving members views/advise/suggestions. Cabot have filed a case against me as assignee of debts from Providian & Barclaycard.I requested true signed copies of agreements under CCA 1974-paid £1 fee.They sent me one from Providian-acopy of a 'Reply Card' card saying 'Please reply by 15th Dec 2000'-it has my signature and dated 29 Nov 2000.No terms & Conditions.Another separate copy headed 'Financial And Related Conditions' which may be copy from any year-no link between the two.Willing to provide (not obliged as they are assignee) Barclaycard Credit Agreement when a copy is provided by the Assignor.My cheque was returned and they have stated that.

'You will observe that section 77 and 78 CCA74 states that ''The Creditor under a regulated agreement...shall give the debtor'' cetain documents.The Claimant also submits that it is an assignee of the contractual benefits of the agreement.Accordingly Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd(''Cabot UK'') is not the Creditor for the purpose of the CCA74 as defined by Section 189 of the CCA74.

The CCA states that the Creditoris ''the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law,and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement,includes the prospective creditor'' The Claimant in this case is the Assignee of the contractual benefits of the Credit Agreement and the Judgement.The contractual liabilities and the burdens of the Credit Agreement have not been assigned.The Claimants position is that as a matter of contract law,an assignment transfer the rights or benefits but does not relieve the Assignor of duties or burdons of liabilities to the other contacting party or entitle that party to enforce such duties or burdens of liabilities against the assignne of the debt.In the House Of Lords case of Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1994) 1 AC 85,Lord Brown-Wilkinson stated that ''It is trite law that it is, in any event, impossible to assign ''the contact'' as a whole,i.e.including both burden and benefit.The burden of a contract can never be assigned without the concent of the other party to the contract...''Therefore, it is submitted that the claimant is an assignee and has not been assigned the burden or the liability of the the Credit Agreement.Therefore the Claimant is not bound by Section 77 or 78 CCA74 requests.

As we the Claimant is not the Creditor for the purpose of the CCA74, we return your cheque to you.

I have filed my Defence saying that there is no valid agreement and no monies are due to Cabot.

1)The Claimant has not provided true copy of agreement fully compliant with all the regulations made under the provisions CCA 1974.Proof Required.

2)No Statement of Accounts

3)No Default Notice from Cabot

4)No Notice of Assignment etc total claim £20645.62

Allocation Questionnare to be filed by 18/7/10.

Any advise will be appreciated.

Thanks

Ohm

[Hadituptohere]

I think that youve made your point....

 

theres something strange here im sure

 

Hadituptohere

[pt2537]

lol

 

In my opinion, what cabot are suggesting is fiction, as if what they say is correct, Wilson v FCT would never have happened.

[Rhia]

PT this is OHM's main post here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/264876-lost-against-cabot-3.html

 

And you also answered this aspect on Georges thread which ishere in a minute when I cut and paste...

 

Ta da! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/264876-lost-against-cabot.html

[appo0712]

Cabot are becoming more and more transparent.

You would think that they would come up with something more original.

[andrew1]

I think that youve made your point....

 

theres something strange here im sure

 

Hadituptohere

 

One of which is this:

 

My case is as follows:Morgan Solicitors have said that Contractual Liabilities and Burdens have not been assigned to Cabot (UK)-was Cabot (Europe) before !!

 

Cabot UK was not Cabot Europe before. It was Kingshill No.1 Ltd. Europe has always been the servicing company for UK/Kingshill.

[Hadituptohere]

Hahahaha does anyone else like a chuckle???

 

Received this... they must be really really really desperate....

 

 

 

 

Now wheres that bog of unless you can provide all the docs that conforms to CCA74 letter that nocking around the site???

 

Hadituptohere

Edited July 16, 2010 by Hadituptohere

[pt2537]

werent they struck out?

 

ask them, do they under stand the doctrine of abuse of process.

Edited July 16, 2010 by citizenB
Title amended

[Hadituptohere]

Hi pt this is a different card same old rubbish theres nearly 1000.00 in charges on this alledged account and cabot havent responded to my enquiry of who do I sue for the illegal charges which was sent back in 2008

 

Hadituptohere

Edited July 16, 2010 by citizenB
Title amended

[citizenB]

I dont understand, if this account is not subject to a claim then why are they waffling on about Practice Directions and Pre action Protocols. ?

 

HIUTH.. it might be better for you to separate this latest letter from this thread or other caggers might assume that it is still to do with the claim that was struck out.

Edited July 16, 2010 by citizenB

[Hadituptohere]

Hi citizen B

 

Looks like its going to need a new thread if morgans are really foolish enough to continue with this one, will do if it progresses.

 

Been in touch with the County Court today and apparently theres a letter in the post, which I should receive tomorrow regarding the costs for my cabot/providian case

 

Hadituptohere

Edited July 16, 2010 by Hadituptohere

[Meldrew]

Now wheres that bog of unless you can provide all the docs that conforms to CCA74 letter that nocking around the site???

Well, as Morgans have decided to invoke the Pre-Action Conduct Protocol, you could start by tinkering around with this:

RECORDED DELIVERY

 

Request for copies of documents

(Civil Procedure Rules 1998: Pre-Action Protocols)

 

Dear Sirs

Account/Reference [1234 5678 8765 4321] (IN DISPUTE)

 

Your letter dated **DATE** (received **DATE**) indicates that your client might commence court proceedings against me without further notice or warning.

 

As you know, I have long since requested from your client, under both the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 74”) and the Data Protection Act 1998, evidence of the agreement to which both you and your client allege I am a party. To date your client has failed to supply any such evidence, but instead tried to persuade me that providing a copy of an application form discharges your client from further obligations under section 78 of CCA 74. Conversely, I have explained that a copy of a mere application form is not a lawful substitute for a true copy of the executed agreement as required by CCA 74 s.78 and prescribed by Regulation 3 of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (“CNCD 83”).

 

I remind you that CCA 74 s.78(6) provides that a creditor whilst in default of a request made under sub-section (1) may not enforce the alleged agreement.

 

Notwithstanding the above and your client's persistent, unexplained and wilful refusal to supply a copy of an executed agreement in accordance with its obligations (the permitted omissions under CNCD 83 Reg.3(2) excepted), you have made plain your client’s intention to begin legal proceedings against me. Consequently this matter is now subject to the Civil Procedure Rules and your letter appears to be intended as a “letter before claim”, despite not complying with the Pre-Action Conduct protocol.

 

Therefore take notice that, I request you supply to me within 14 days actual copies of the following documents:

• the executed credit agreement incorporating prescribed notices, terms and conditions applicable at the time the agreement was executed, and
  
• any further or subsequent notices, terms and conditions relied on.
  

If you are unable to supply these documents please confirm discontinuance of your client’s claim.

 

Take note that this request is not made under either CCA 74 or DPA 98. It is under Annex A paragraph 4.2(7) of the CPR Pre-Action Conduct protocol, for a copy of alleged documents which I believe are relevant but do not have.

 

Should you ignore this request or try to circumvent it, I shall in due course make another under CPR 27 or 31.15, as appropriate. If you fail to comply with that request, I will ask the court to strike out your client's claim as an abuse of process due to lack of reasonable grounds. The application will refer to this and previous document requests, and apply for costs.

 

FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, I DO NOT ADMIT THE EXISTENCE OR VALIDITY OF AN AGREEMENT WITH OR DEBT TO YOU OR ANYONE YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT.

 

Yours faithfully

You'll need to adapt it to your own circumstances. Firstly review what's happened so far on this particular issue, then edit the the text accordingly, chopping or modifying any bits that don't apply in your case.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2010 by Meldrew
tautology; 2nd edit:formatting corrected after transfer to new thread

[Hadituptohere]

Hi everyone

 

Cabot have been foolish enough to pass their alledged account on to there litigation team (can you hear my knees knocking from there???)

 

 

 

Hadituptohere

Edited July 16, 2010 by citizenB
Title amended

[cymruambyth]

I think I'll keep a copy of this (if you don't mind Meldrew) as I'm expecting a similar letter in the near future:eek:

Thank you

Edited July 16, 2010 by citizenB

[citizenB]

Cym, I will be moving your post to the new thread so your post doesnt look odd

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/268157-hadituptohere-same-crowd-different.html

 

Link to Hadituptohere's latest saga....

[Hadituptohere]

Thankyou Meldrew thats just what i was looking for

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

And many thanks to citizenB, your a star.

 

Hadituptohere