Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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 
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

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


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4374 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 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There’s all kinds can go haywire – sometimes it’s the courts that mess up. But you may find they claimed to have served the application on you as well, and did not. Wait and see...

 

What you can be sure of is that it did not happen on its own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I intend to write to Morgans again re-issuing my CPR 31.14 request originally sent in November 2010 but I will leave this until I can get information from the court. Do you think the best course of action is to wait before sending this request again or should I lodge a letter with the Court to say that Morgans, despite repeated requests, have failed to substantiate their claim with any documentation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great advice... much olbiged DonkeyB. How then, in your opinion, should I acknowledge the Court Order to Transfer to Fast Track? I have already told the court that the action had previously been struck out and enclosed a copy of that order with my letter ... should I now put on record to the court that as far as I am concerned this action is not 'live' and that no evidence has ever been produced, despite previous requests via CPR 31.14, to support the Claimant's claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Heathrow

 

Why would you transfer to Fast Track I don't understand ? AQ? You cant say its not live until you receive the necessary documentation to state what happened.It may have been struck out they set a side and stayed the claim, I personally wouldn't do anything until you have had a response from the Court.What date must your AQ be filed?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The parties have to decide by next Friday (10 Feb) whether the claim is capable of being resolved by Alternative Dispute Resolution and give standard discloure by 2 March. I guess it has been referred to Fast Track because it is considerably over the £5000 limit that I gather is the County Court maximum but this method is likely to incur an additional cvourt charge of over £1,000 according to the Court website. It is likely to be assigned a full day for some reason probably because Morgans are attempting to bring two actions in one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look here.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?141075-Cabot-Morgan-Solicitors-Court-Action-(ex-Goldfish-account)/page16

 

I recollect that this lot are a little, er, unreliable when it comes to mediation. I’m wondering if they suggested mediation to the court – many similarities here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dare I suggest that the company they have 'recommended ... that they use regularly' would always rule in their favour or is this being synical? How mad do they think we are? Does anyone know of any mediation cases that have worked in favour of the debtor that I can look at on here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read the latest order from the court several times, to transfer the matter to Fast Track after it had previously been struck out a year ago; nothing has changed and Morgans/Cabot still have not provided any of the requested documentation applied for under CPR31.14. With this in mind, I cannot understand how another judge can suddenly pick up the case and reverse the strike out? Now, it seems to me is that a mistake has occurred (or in some way Morgans have been devious) so I intend writing to the court to request that the original 'strike out' order should be reinstated on the grounds that the situation has not changed since a previous judge made the order. I will also point out Morgans non-compliance with CPR31.14 and in view of this and the lack of supporting evidence in their POC I can neither agree/disagree to mediation as suggested without having any evidence in my possession.

Any views on this please anyone?

Edited by heathrow
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

There are no circumstances whatsoever in which a creditor can combine two unrelated and separate claims in respect of of two unrelated and separate debts so as to make them appear to be one claim for one debt. There are no Rules of Court which provide for such a thing. The nearest is Rule 7.3, which provides that more than one claim can be included on the claim form, and they can be heard at the same time; but the crucial point is that they remain as separate claims, to be dealt with as separate claims. A creditor has no legal authority to combine, on his own whim, two unrelated claims into a concocted third (non-existent) claim.

Having said that, the unfortunate reality is that it happens every week in the county courts, because no one ever challenges it, for various reasons, e.g. many are against litigants in person who do not realise it outside the rules; many district judges dont know either, and it has become a comfortable and unchallenged way of dealing with debt cases, which the debt collectors continue to get away with. 99.9% of the British public have no idea of this dodgy practise going on, so no one complains about it, and the gravy train for debt collectors just rumbles on.

 

 

Best of luck in your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say toymaker1 is interesting and I have raised this with the court. The problem is that the court seldom seems to want to respond so I guess my only other option would be to complaint to the Dept of Justice of whoever. What do you think the appropriate course of action could be?

 

With regards to this matter; I have now lodged a letter with the court to suggest that the second judge has made an order to transfer to Fast Track on an action that was struck out almost a year ago and I consider this to be an error more especially as the Claimant has constantly failed to provide evidence to justify their claim. The situation is exactly as it was when the previous judge struck it out; notihng has changed apart from Morgans I guess trying to get the case re-opened. The way the claim is written is so dodgy that if the court allows this to proceed, the way I see it would leave a door open to anyone to start a bogus action to claim they have bought a debt and are legally entitle to enforce it. Without offering proof when issuing the Claim I am astounded that the court has allowed this action to be looked at all in its present state.

 

The entire DCA situation, as I understood it, was meant to be investigated by an all party Parliamentary committee to improve the laws realting to the way DCAs operate because they continue to disregard the law and the judges don't oppose it. It is time I think for us as a group to lobby Parliament for better rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With regards to this matter; I have now lodged a letter with the court to suggest that the second judge has made an order to transfer to Fast Track on an action that was struck out almost a year ago and I consider this to be an error more especially as the Claimant has constantly failed to provide evidence to justify their claim. The situation is exactly as it was when the previous judge struck it out; notihng has changed apart from Morgans I guess trying to get the case re-opened.

 

What reason did the judge give for striking out the Claim last year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case was struck out because 'no party had informed the court of the outcome of any settlement and it was assumed the case had been settled and unless any party informed the court to the contrary the claim and any counterclaim will be struck out'. A date was given of almost a year ago for either party to inform the court that the action was still live. I had heard nothing from the Claimant or the court to suggest it was live therefore I felt the action remained struck out more especially as none of my requests under CPR had ever been complied with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case was struck out because 'no party had informed the court of the outcome of any settlement and it was assumed the case had been settled and unless any party informed the court to the contrary the claim and any counterclaim will be struck out'. A date was given of almost a year ago for either party to inform the court that the action was still live. I had heard nothing from the Claimant or the court to suggest it was live therefore I felt the action remained struck out more especially as none of my requests under CPR had ever been complied with.

 

The crucial bit when it was struck out was this;

"it was assumed the case had been settled and unless any party informed the court to the contrary the claim and any counterclaim will be struck out'.

Unfortunately, this left open to Cabot the opportunity to "inform the court to the contrary", at which time the claim was re-instated. - striking out is not always a final act, there are often opportunities for the party who has been struck out to get the claim re-instated, provided they give good reasons to the court, as apparently happened in this case. Another example is where a document is served later than permitted by the rules, and the case is then struck out, but if the late server gives a good excuse to the court, the matter is re-instated.

As professional litigants, Cabot know how to take advantage of all these tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, this is useful. But, should I have been informed by the court that it had been re-instated by Cabot before they sent me the transfer Order?

 

It still raises the point that Cabot/Morgans have not complied with my CPR requests therefore I cannot agree to mediation if I have no proof whether their claim is malicious or genuine. Have I got grounds to apply to for a renewed strike out as they are refusing to supply any information?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes subject to to time restraints but you really need (as advised ) the paperwork you are missing.Unless you know the basis of the reinstatement (if it was reinstated or stayed or set a side) then its very difficult to base an argument or strike out, and also a possible waste of an application fee.

 

Regards

 

Andy

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. I've written to the Court for the information regarding how/who applied to re-instate this case and have stated that I cannot agree/disagree to mediation without the information I requested under CPR more than a year ago as I have no way of determining whether this action has any chance of success. It could be the Claimant is asking for mediation because they have a weak case as they have also written with a 'without prejudice' letter with a settlement figure. Nevertheless, there is still this issue over lumping two different accounts together in a single claim. What do you think please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toymaker covered that quite succinctly in post# 92 I would add that normally its the same Creditor IE Personal Loan & Overdraft or 2 credit card accounts same OC.

When they are from different sources makes the claim rather complicated not only in pleading the SoC but also responding in a defence plea.Very messy and really should be discouraged and set in stone within the CPR/County Courts Acts etc.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The court has responded informing me that the Claimant had requested for the clain NOT to be struck out last year despite the court advising me otherwise as no retraction was sent to me following the Order to strike out. Similarly, the Claimant has also been responsible for requesting mediation. It is odd that I have been kept in the dark over all of this but it seems the Claimant, who the court has said should have kept me informed, has failed to do so which appears to be a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage. I'd like know why the Courts are so lenient with DCAs and their tame solicitors when they infringe the rules yet the same consideration is never given to the defendant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they set a side and stayed Heathrow, and still left it a further 6 months to proceed to AQ.You are quite right and that should be the focus of your defence that they have deliberately misled the Court to gain advantage over you the LiP.So you are back to were you was before the strike out, perhaps a short synopsis and time line to refresh caggers were we are then we can continue to advise your next course of action.

 

Regards

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy for your kind assistance.

 

1. Original PoC issued November 2010 by CC Clearing Centre - No details appertaining to the PoC but two different credit cards lumped together in an accumulated claim.

Claimant merely gave reference numbers for these accounts & stating that I had been sent Notices of Assignments to Cabot which was not true. Claimant claiming £xxxxx and interest under S69 of County Court Act

 

2. I applied to have the action moved to my local court which was granted,

 

3. I wrote to Morgans to state that I had received two (undated) letters relating to the same one of the two accounts they had included on the PoC each containing two different alleged balances. These stated they were Notices of Assignment but NEITHER were dated so it appeared they had been produced by Cabot. My letter acknowledged receipt of the summons but I pointed out that I had never received any formal demand for a payments on the accounts they claimed to own nor had I had any previous dealings with Cabot to my knowledge.

 

4. I followed this letter with a CPR 31.14 request a week later sent by Recorded Delivery requesting copies of the Agreements, The Notices of Assignment and the Demands for Payment they claimed they had made.

 

5. I returned the court questionnaire N159 in January stating that the Claimant had combined two separate cc accounts on one claim and that I had requested disclosures under CPR 31.14 from the Claimant. Similarly the Claimant sent me a copy of their completed Questionnaire.

 

6. In February a stay was granted ordering parties to reach an agreement; make a request for an extension to the stay or complete the allocation questionnaire (which had been done). Later that month I wrote to the court for a further stay period and notified the Claimant and informed them that I had received no response to my previous request for CPR 31.14 evidence.

 

7. In March 2011 the case was struck out (Despite the court sending me a letter received today claiming this wasn't the case - although I sent a copy of the Order with my letter)

 

We are now back to the situation stated in my last posts. Morgans have still not responded to my CPR 31.14 requests and last week sent me two separate letters; the first stating they are prepared to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and recommending a company that they have used before (sic) The second letter marked 'Without prejudice save as to Costs' made a slight reduction if I am prepared to settle with instalments of £250 a month that I cannot afford and phishing by sending me a Cabot information and budget report.

 

A bit lengthy, as these things tend to be, but I think it puts everything in a nutshell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...