Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
    • I see they're trying to round up asylum seekers and lock them up for about three months so they can be put on planes to Rwanda. I'm a bit surprised that this is legal.  
    • thought for the day "Prime ministers need a big strategy that tells you where you’re going, you need a bunch of tactics that get you there, and you need the ability to take everybody else with you."   Now I know you are all thinking 'why is the  UKs destination Rwanda ???
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Morgans/Cabot claim form - on citi Card debt with a recon *** Claim Dismissed by Consent***


molly13
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4241 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 352
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

As I have said in earlier post.. I have never received ANY notification from the OC that the account had been sold.. not even one supplied by Cabot.

Ah, well.. onwards and upwards... just try to get something together:-)

 

Thanks anyway

 

Molly:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW.. I was also under the impression that for an assignment to be absolute it would have to have been assigned with all rights and duties for a creditor to enforce through court:???:

Can anyone explain please?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said in earlier post.. I have never received ANY notification from the OC that the account had been sold.. not even one supplied by Cabot.

Ah, well.. onwards and upwards... just try to get something together:-)

 

Thanks anyway

 

Molly:-)

 

Doesnt have to come from the original lender, it can come from whoever owns the account now. bizarre I know but look up Law of Property act 1925 s136

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW.. I was also under the impression that for an assignment to be absolute it would have to have been assigned with all rights and duties for a creditor to enforce through court:???:

Can anyone explain please?

Thanks

 

I would assume the same.. absolute is absolute not piecemeal, if they have absolute assignment then they have the duties as well as the benefits imvho.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shadow,

 

Thanks i'll look up the law of property act..

 

In my CPR 18 I asked if the assignment was Absolute.. The response was " that the claimant was assigned all rights,title and interest under the contract with the Defendant pursuant to s. 136 LoP 1925

 

No mention of duties which is why I want to see the DOA/Sales Agreement..

 

Molly:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shadow,

 

Thanks i'll look up the law of property act..

 

In my CPR 18 I asked if the assignment was Absolute.. The response was " that the claimant was assigned all rights,title and interest under the contract with the Defendant pursuant to s. 136 LoP 1925

 

No mention of duties which is why I want to see the DOA/Sales Agreement..

 

Molly:-)

 

Hmm welcome to the murky world of DCA's.

 

Just because they dont agree that they have to perform some/all of the duties of the original lender doesnt necessarily mean the sale wasnt absolute. To take you to court they must own the debt outright so they have standing in front of the court, if not then the original lenders must be a co-plaintiff.

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks shadow, I'm even more confused now.

 

In a letter Cabot stated that as they were not the OC they did not hold the original agreement, and took several months to produce a reconstituted one. When I asked how it was reconstituted their reply was that they don't know I'd have to ask the OC. In the meantime the OC creditor tells me they don't have the original, so how am I able to prove that the reconstituded agreement is a 'true' copy??:???:At the moment I just feel like giving up on this and let them have what they want:sad:

Thank you anyway:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I can see you are confused....a reconstructed copy is a copy of an application basically constructed from information they hold about you, a true copy is a directly copied version of an agreement possibly minus the signature.

 

The DCA will never have a copy of your agreement even after purchasing the debt, they will have recieved a spreadsheet with your contact details contained alongside the amount outstanding and some other bits and bobs of info no doubt. When you s78 a DCA they go to the original creditor for a copy of the agreement.

 

Now reconstructions are allowed to s77/s78 requests it would seem the original creditor has given them this to supply to you. This would satisfy the s77/s78 request but should be contested if they attempt to say it can be used in an enforcement case. Carey vs HSBC was quite adamant it should be used informationally only but you would need to put forward some positive reason why the reconstruction is wrong.. eg. incorrect apr etc etc.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rights assigned in a debt sale are all

the rights and responsibilites set out

in the terms and conditions of the original

contract, giving the debt purchase the same

powers as the original creditor.

 

Brig

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Molly

 

My understandings from your posts are that the account was sold to Cabot from Citi during November 2006, a Default Notice had been served by the OC although you did not receive a NOA from them.

 

You received a welcome letter from Cabot and sent your I & E; token payments were agreed, any interest frozen, During April 2010 Cabot started to demand more money.

 

Although Cabot wanted a new I & E you ignored this and carried on paying the token amounts.

 

Cabot then started threats and you sent the CCA, which Cabot failed to supply and the account was put in dispute.

 

The last payment you made was June 2010.

 

IMO the question that must first be put is when you agreed initially to make token payments was this confirmed in writing from Cabot? If so was there a paragraph that stated this concessionairy agreement was subject to an annual or periodic review?

 

Cabot Europe and Cabot UK are "companies" which are part of the Cabot Credit Management Group of Companies ("The Group") the principle activity of "The Group" is the purchase and recovery of debt.

"Cabot UK" is the "company name" used by "The Group" to acquire debts, save for statutory officers, "Cabot UK" does not have any employees.

 

Servicing and collection of debts is conducted by "Cabot Europe"

 

Without being able to access to see if the 2 NOA’s you have received are from 2 different and separate companies it would be reasonable to assume Cabot merely "transferred" this account inhouse to another Group name so as to pursue legal action against you.

 

As you state the last payment you made to Cabot was June 2010.

 

With 3 and a half years of payments yet no Statements of Account from Cabot, Cabot Credit Management Group breached terms whereby creditors or DCA’s were required to first issue from October 2008 an annual statement of account, again, it would be reasonable if no such statements have been received to assume Cabot are deliberately trying to hide the true history, implying this to be a new account they "bought" March 2011.

 

Any defence must be based on points of law, could you expand on events June 2010?

 

IMO you have a history of regular payments, without any notice of arrears the dispute arose because without good reason Cabot demanded an increase in payments, the resulting legal action was unnecessary and should be deemed an abuse of process, no action should have commenced whilst the account was in dispute.

 

Section 82 Consumer Credit Act 1974 is of interest to this claim, reflecting the new European Union Directive Assignment of Rights, whenevr the act is amended Creditors are bound to abide by the new terms and enact with immediate affect, not ignore in the hope no one will notice.

 

16. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS

 

16.1 Where any rights of a creditor under a consumer credit agreement (for example the right to be repaid the money) are sold or transferred to a third party, notice of that assignment must be given to the borrower as soon as reasonably possible, except in the circumstances described below. This requirement applies to all regulated consumer credit agreements other than agreements secured on land. This requirement is in new section 82A of the CCA43.

 

 

16.2 It is the responsibility of the assignee (the creditor acquiring the rights) to ensure that notice is given. However, he does not have to give notice himself, but can agree with the assignor (the creditor assigning the rights) that the assignor will give notice instead, depending on what is more sensible in the circumstances. It is important, however, that notice is given as soon as reasonably possible and in a way that is clearly understandable by the borrower.

 

 

16.3 Notice does not have to be given where arrangements for servicing the credit are unchanged as far as the borrower is concerned. For example, if Creditor A sells his rights under a credit agreement to Creditor B but Creditor A still collects the borrower’s repayments in the same way and is the only point of contact for the borrower on matters regarding the agreement, notice does not have to be given.

 

 

16.4 Where notice has not been given, and arrangements for servicing the credit do subsequently change, the borrower must be informed of the assignment on or before the date that change happens. Again, this must be readily comprehensible to the borrower.

 

 

16.5 The definition of "creditor" in section 189 of the CCA applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party."

 

86C Notice of sums in arrears

 

(1) This section applies where at any time the following conditions are satisfied—

 

(a) That the debtor under an applicable agreement is required to have made at least two payments under the agreement before that time;

 

(b) That the last two payments which he is required to have made before that time have not been made;

 

© That the creditor has not already been required to give a notice under this section in relation to either of those payments; and

 

(d) If a judgement has been given in relation to the agreement before that time, that there is no sum still to be paid under the judgement by the debtor.

 

(2) The creditor shall, no later than the end of the period within which he is next required to give a statement under section 78(4) in relation to the agreement, give the debtor a notice under this section.

 

(3) The notice shall include a copy of the current arrears information sheet under section 86A.

 

(4) The notice may be incorporated in a statement or other notice, which the creditor gives the debtor in relation to the agreement by virtue of another provision of this Act.

 

(5) The debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of the notice.

 

(6) Regulations may make provision about the form and content of notices under this section.

 

(7) In this section ‘applicable agreement’ means an agreement which—

 

(a) Is a regulated agreement for running-account credit; and

 

(b) Is neither a non-commercial agreement nor a small agreement.

 

86D Failure to give notice of sums in arrears

 

(1) This section applies where the creditor or owner under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor or hirer notices under section 86B but fails to give him such a notice—

 

 

(a) Within the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section; or

 

(b) Within the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which such a notice was last given to him.

 

 

(2) This section also applies where the creditor under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor a notice under section 86C but fails to do so before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.

 

(3) The creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rights assigned in a debt sale are all

the rights and responsibilites set out

in the terms and conditions of the original

contract, giving the debt purchase the same

powers as the original creditor.

 

Brig

 

Plenty of people with past history with cabot have pinned cabot down through this, where cabot have clearly stated they have the rights but not the responcabilities (poor spelling i know)of the contract, helps if there are charges that have been applied or PPI that was mis-sold, if cabot are asking you to check with the OC then it seems that cabot arent accepting the responcabilities but want the rights molly

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone refresh my memory

do Cabot own this or not???

 

Believe this was sold to Cabot in Nov 2006 - that's my understanding from the thread Brig.

Santander PPI X 2 **WON** claims on behalf of son (Oct 2010/ Mar 2011)

Citicard O/H (PPI) - **WON** Compound Interest Dec 2011

Citicard O/H (Charges) Bailiffs sent in August 2012

Barclaycard - **WON** Compound Interest Oct 2011

Monument - account information being sought for OH

Citicard - self - N1 submitted August 2012

Barclaycard - self - **WON** damages for non disclosure/information now rec'd. Aug 2012

Barclaycard - relation - Failed SAR sent 29/09/11

Halifax SAR sent 18/08/2011 for relation

LTSB - SAR sent 09/08/2011 for friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Sorry for delay in response, still feeling a bit ropey and having Pc probs.:x

Anyway thank you all for your input.

 

Shadow... Thanks, I see what you mean in regards to using Carey.

 

Consumeredge.."IMO the question that must first be put is when you agreed initially to make token payments was this confirmed in writing from Cabot? If so was there a paragraph that stated this concessionairy agreement was subject to an annual or periodic review"

 

Yes it was confirmed in writing... " This arrangement is agreed upon the express terms that all payments are received by us on or before the due dates.We wshall then review your account annually, includibg the applicable interest rate and monthly payment amount. If for any reason payments are not received by the agreed dates,the arrangement will be cancelled and we will enforce our right to payment under the original terms and conditions. Such enforcement will include,but will not be limited to, the reinstatement of the full balance and interest due as of today's date, together with all additional interest that would have accrued but for this arrangement."

 

I have never received ANY statements.. Annual or otherwise.

I did make the payments up until the account was put in dispute due to not receiving the CCA, However after receiving it I sent several letters asking how it had been reconstructed and never got a response until the letter several months later where they ask me to confirm with Citi.I therefore feel that I had a valid reason for disputing the account until they told me how it was reconstituted..

 

BTW I have also noticed that on the reverse of the DN,from Citi with a different account number shown, issued roughly 6 months prior to sale, it is stated: "Re.Notice of Default I am writing to explain the purpose of the Notice of Default that accompanies this letter. I understand that you have an existing arrangement with CitiFinancial Europe plc (Citi) wherby Citi has agreed to accept less than the contractual minimum monthly payment in order to enable you to repay your outstanding debt. As part of its business strategy,Citi has decided to sell those accounts,such as your own, which are subject to long term payment arrangement. In order to sell the account, we have sent out the Default Notice to conform with thee Consumer Credit Act 1974.It is not intended by this Notice to alter the payment terms of our previous areement with you. Citi will sell the account subject to the terms of its agreement with you and on the understanding that the purchaser will continue to honour those terms as long as you maintain your payments. In the event that you default, the purchaser will be free to negotiate alternative terms with you"

 

Brigadier.. Cabot allege that they own the account.. however to date I have no proof of this.

 

Thank you all.

 

Molly:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the situation that ''you are unaware of any transfer of the interest in the account to Cabot''

you cannot therefore deal with them would be my response.

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brigadier...In my CPR 18 I asked if the assignment was Absolute.. The response was " that the claimant was assigned all rights,title and interestlink3.gif under the contract with the Defendant pursuant to s. 136 LoP 1925

 

No mention of duties which is why I want to see the DOA/Sales Agreement..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another strange thing...

In the alleged NOA 2006 it says Account type: CitiFinancial

In the letter re payment arrangements it says Card Type: CitiFinancial

Then a year later Account review letter says Account type: CitiPlatinum Card

:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DEED is sensitive commercial document, they

would only produce this on the order of a judge,

and I think reluctantly.

The statement they have made would I think satisfy

the court that they are now the ''creditor''

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...