Cabot/Morgans claimform - 2 debts cap1 card + Barclaycard - *** Settled on F&FS ***

[heathrow]

I have posted on an existing thread without any response but feel it better to start a new one.

 

Today, out of the blue, I received a Northampton Clearing Centre claim for over £17000 for two credit card accounts (on the same Claim) Cabot claim to own.

 

 

Morgans wrote to me in September and I responded asking for proof of ownership of one of these accts.(Barclaycard)

but the other one (Capital One)

 

 

I have had no contact about at all.

I intend to defend these claims because I do not know where their figures comes from;

I have had no notice of assignment form the second c/card and no Default notices at all.

 

I have written to Morgans to say I will applying to the court to have the matter set aside

until Cabot can prove they have a right to pursue me.

I have told them I also need to see the CCA's for these claims.

 

As I am unemployed and have been for 6 months

I am no longer able to claim Job Seekers Allowance

and waiting to hear if I can claim other benefits becaasue I have ziltch income.

 

Can anyone please provide me with urgent assistance as to what I should do next?

[dx100uk]

they cannot lump debts from diff oc's into one claim?

 

dx

[alangee]

If you have not received a Notice of Assignment, then, at best, the assignment is only equitable, so they can only make a claim against you together with the original creditor, not in their name alone. They have to prove that you received any NoA they sent, and the only way they can do that, if sent by post, is to send it recorded.

 

Have a look at this from Rosling King http://news.roslingking.com/?p=391

 

Alan

[nicklea]

It's nice to see from that link that we are making a small difference to how financial services companies deal with things - ie having to do it properly

[GALLIVER2516]

Morgans are very good at sending you a copy representation of NOA, they also put in there POC in my case that the original NOA was sent by ordinary post which looking at the link alangee posted on his reply is a no no , they really are a bunch of................

[heathrow]

Thanks folks. I didn't think they could lump two separate claims together either more especially as I have not had any communication at all from Morgans about the second.

Sorry Galliver ... perhaps I am tired or just not with it tonight ... what is an NOA?

Does anyone know how I should present my defence please?

[dx100uk]

noa - post 3? read the thread

 

dx

[heathrow]

Got you. Apologies.

[heathrow]

In this case Morgans had threatened legal action with the standard letter a few weeks ago

and I challenged their right to do this because I had not received an NOA

and I had not heard anything previously from Cabot.

 

 

Then two arrived the same day (different dates and different amounts for the same account)

on a Barclaycard letterhead posted by Cabot.

 

 

This seems a bit suspicious.

 

 

As far as I was aware another DCA had been assigned the account by Barclaycard.

 

Can more than one DCA chase the same account?

 

 

Seems doubtful to me.

[dx100uk]

if you are on a phishign list then anything can happen

 

have you any other threads on the a/c history here pse

 

dx

[heathrow]

No; I only received the County Court Claim yesterday. What do you need to know?

[dx100uk]

understood

i'll alert this thread

and slightly change its title to give better info

 

dx

siteteam

[nicklea]

they cannot lump debts from diff oc's into one claim?

 

dx

 

Yes they can.

 

They have purchased both debts so both debts belong to them. This is no different than a bank making a claim for both a credit card debt and a loan that a customer has with them

 

 

In this case Morgans had threatened legal action with the standard letter a few weeks ago and I challenged their right to do this because I had not received an NOA and I had not heard anything previously from Cabot. Then two arrived the same day (different dates and different amounts for the same account) on a Barclaycard letterhead posted by Cabot. This seems a bit suspicious. As far as I was aware another DCA had been assigned the account by Barclaycard.

Can more than one DCA chase the same account? Seems doubtful to me.

 

This illustrates the dangers of replying to letters from debt collectors. The Law of Property Act does not speak of a notice but notice - the two things are different and as it was held in Van Lynn by Widgery LJ:-

 

Accordingly, it is wrong to suppose that a separate document purposely prepared as a notice, and described as such, is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. The statute only requires that information relative to the assignment shall be conveyed to the debtor, and that it shall be conveyed in writing

 

So, in writing to you and threatening legal action they were giving you notice of the assignment and in replying you aknowledged that you had received notice. In the case of the other debt then you do have the defence that you have not received notice of the assignment. You will need to read several threads on this website to see how to construct a defence. Search for threads with assignment in the title.

[heathrow]

Thanks Nicklea.

My reply to Morgan merely stated that I had no knowledge of their company or of Cabot and that if they thought they had a claim against me they needed tp provide proof that they were legally allowed to pursue me. This is when Cabot sent me two different letters for the same account.

It's a difficult one isn't it?

However, it is the usual claim stuff that I have read on other threads ... deliberately vague and just states two credit card debts and the amounts. At the end of the day they have to provide proof do they not?

[nicklea]

Of course they do, so this is where you now need to put in a defence and be sure that you read this thread:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283443-Embarrased-Defences-and-the-problems-with-them.

 

and this one:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

Edited November 19, 2010 by nicklea

[heathrow]

Thanks again Nicklea. This appears very helpful.

[heathrow]

This has been interestimg reading because I am trying to put my defence together in response to a Claim from Morgan/Cabot for two different credit card accounts (different issuers even) on the same claim but with no supporting evidence. Can they 'double up' and claim two for one?

I have prepared my CPR31.14 letter and about to post Recorded to Morgans (Cabot's inhouse rotweillers) requesting copies of the original agreements, notices of assignment and purported demands for payment.

I am not quite sure how to respond to the Claim other than to state that the Claimant has provided no supporting evidence and that I have requested information under CPR 31.14.

Is there anything else I need to do as I need to get this done today as deadline for defence is Thursday even though I did not get the court document until 5 days after issue date.

Please advise.

[AndyOrch]

Hi Heathrow

 

You really need to start your own thread assuming you haven't all ready.Take a look at Garys defence this will give you some guidance.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[heathrow]

Thanks Andy

I have been reading through Gary's defence and also Mysticpols06 and I am grateful for your input. I am basically going to follow the defence that Mystic prepared. However I have a couple of questions you may be able to answer if you can?

1) I have written (will post this afternoon) to Morgans requesting the three items referred to in what no seems to be their standard POC. Can I request further items under CPR31 that were not mentioned on the POC (such as copies of statements, how interest has been added etc) or does this fall under some other rule?

2) If I file a defence online should I also send back the paperwork marked 'confirmation of online defence' or whatever?

Thanks.

Heathrow

[AndyOrch]

Thanks Andy

I have been reading through Gary's defence and also Mysticpols06 and I am grateful for your input. I am basically going to follow the defence that Mystic prepared. However I have a couple of questions you may be able to answer if you can?

1) I have written (will post this afternoon) to Morgans requesting the three items referred to in what no seems to be their standard POC. Can I request further items under CPR31 that were not mentioned on the POC (such as copies of statements, how interest has been added etc) or does this fall under some other rule? No use CPR 18 and actually specify the statements

2) If I file a defence online should I also send back the paperwork marked 'confirmation of online defence' or whatever? No the process is al automated and will be forwarded to the claimant, should they seek any clarification they will contact you.

Thanks.

Heathrow

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[heathrow]

Hi Andy

 

I have based my defence on that of Mysticpols' as per the following. do you think this is okay to file?

1. I, xxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as a defence to the claim made by xxxxxx

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3. The Defendant notes that the Claimant has combined two separate account sums in their particulars of claim in an attempt to conveniently wholly dispose of them in the same proceedings under CPR 7.3, however each sum involves separate accounts with their own original lender, account references, terms, conditions and legal status and cannot possibly be “conveniently” disposed of in a single claim, therefore CPR 7.3 cannot apply in this instance.

 

4. a)The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the contracts referred to, the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim.

b) A copy of the purported 'assignment' that the Claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served, attached to the claim form or provided for clarification.

 

5. The Claimant did not send a letter before action applicable to this action as required under the Pre-Action Protocols.

 

6. The Claimant has so far failed to disclose and clarify appropriate information to support the Particulars of Claim, requested pursuant to CPR 31, which leaves the Defendant at a disadvantage and unable to plead effectively or at all. Even if the Defendant were able to plead they should be allowed to plead effectively to each account on its’ own merit. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Claim as it stands.

 

7. The Claimant has not provided any documents to support the particulars of claim and as such have shown no provision within the terms and conditions of either account which would allow interest to be applied after the termination of either account, therefore as the Claimant has not provided proof of the debt or the sums claimed the Defendant denies the Claimants claim for interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Court Act 1984.

 

8. The Defendant has written to the Claimant for an extension of deadline for filing a defence pursuant to CPR 15.5, however the Claimant has not, thus far acknowledged or agreed to the request which in turn has also put the Defendant at a disadvantage for filing a defence, by not allowing enough time to file a suitably amended defence once requested points of clarification have been received.

 

9. The Defendant denies that they are indebted to the Claimant for the sum of £xxxx, including costs and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this sum.

 

AND the Defendant;

 

10. Seeks an order that the Claimant’s action is struck out under CPR 3.4.2 (a), or otherwise dismissed because the claimant has breached CPR 7.3, has failed to support their Particulars of Claim with the relevant documentation and on the grounds that any claim cannot succeed and that the Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs incurred in defending this action. To avoid any confusion in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006. It is drawn to the Court’s attention that Schedule 3, Section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents Section 15 repealing Section 127 (3) of the 1974 Act for Agreements made before Section 15 came into effect. Since the Agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, Section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

[AndyOrch]

Hi Heathrow

 

I have requested to the Site Team to separate this into your own thread as not to complicate Garys thread.I will respond under your own thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[silverfox1961]

Post moved to this thread.

[heathrow]

Cheers

Any comments yet on my post please as I have got to get this sent tomorrow?

Regards,

Heathrow

[silverfox1961]

While I cant add anything, I would like to say that Mpols would be very flattered that you pinched her defence:-)