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

[heathrow]

Has anyone got any ideas how I should proceed with this please?

 

Should I write to the court to say i am not able to agree or disagree to mediation because the Claimant refuses to supply information requiired under CPR 31.14 OR to complain to the court that the Claimant has not followed correct procedures?

 

Thanks.

[toymaker1]

Has anyone got any ideas how I should proceed with this please?

 

Should I write to the court to say i am not able to agree or disagree to mediation because the Claimant refuses to supply information requiired under CPR 31.14 OR to complain to the court that the Claimant has not followed correct procedures?

 

Thanks.

 

Have you been given a date for an allocation hearing?

 

By the way, so far as I know, the matter of mediation is to a certain extent a matter of formalities at this stage. - you are generally expected to state that you are prepared to consider mediation, because if you say you will not, then at the hearing you could get heavily criticised for not agreeing to mediation , unless you can give a really strong reason. - It is quite another matter as to whether any mediation actually gets anywhere, but the courts regard it as important that you at least accept the possibility of mediation, as a part of the whole process. - that does not mean you have to abandon your position against the claimant/creditor. The Claimant will state that they wish to mediate, (even if they are lying through their teeth)which will make them look good in court and put them in a good light to the court. That is the sort of tactic to try to put you on the back foot in court. - At this stage, IMO, it is probably better just to say that you will consider mediation, then deal with the really serious issues in the case.

 

At the allocation hearing you can tell the judge about the fact that there are really two unrelated claims, which should be dealt with as two claims, and ask the judge to order the claimant to provide a breakdown of the amount claimed, so that the two unrelated claims can be properly identified.

 

That's just some thoughts. - there should be some properly legally qualified caggers to advise you.

 

Best of luck.

[heathrow]

Thanks a lot toymaker1 I will take yout advice by not objecting to mediation.

 

The allocation hearing for the transfer to Fast Track has already taken place without me having any prior notice and has been scheduled for trial during June although for a week of that period I am unavailable.

 

I had drafted a letter today, but not yet sent it, to Morgans advising them that they are prejudicing me by failing to supply the documents requested under the Civil Procedure Rules last November. They still have provided no evidence to support their POC.

[heathrow]

I have not written to the court to agree to mediation but have pointed out that this will be difficult because the Claimant refuses to provide evidence required under CPR 31.14 and I consider this to be prejudicing my defence. I have also expressed my concern that Orders have been made without any prior notification being given and that following the order to strike out I was never aware that another order had been issued at the Claimant's request to stay the action.I added that in my opinion the Claimant fails to follow County Court Procedure. I don't hold much hope that they will act on this but it seems to me that the courts always tend to faviur the solicitors working for the DCAs. I have also written to the Claimant to agree in principal to mediation but have reminded them that without the CPR documentation I do not know whether they have any legal claim against me.

[AndyOrch]

Mediation will always be considered when question of Costs arise.You make fair points above Heathrow and not considered as being unreasonable.

 

Andy

[heathrow]

Thanks andyorch ... much appreciated. I'll post any responses that I get but for the moment I have tried to place the ball firmly back in their court (excuse the pun) and I think it is now up to the Claimant to substantiate his claims - remembering that they are also trying to group two separate entities together.

 

Do you happen to know if anything can be done at this stage to recover any PPI that may have been charged on accounts? Presumably, if I had been paying this and wish to attempt to claim it back then this would put their claim further into dispute?

[AndyOrch]

Use it as a bargaining tool or start a separate claim with the FOS.By bargaining tool I mean use this in mediation to mitigate a decent settlement figure.

Whether they would consider it as mis sold is another question!!.

 

Andy

[heathrow]

The PPI must have been mis-sold because I was self-employed at the time and it only evolved later that self employed people sre not covered but this did not stop them from it being applied to some of my accounts.

[heathrow]

I have now received a large bundle of documents from Morgans, by ordinary post, that arrived in a torn envelope with a sharp metal clip holding them together that cut my finger. I am having great trouble making head-nor-tail of most of these but will study them in more detail over the next few days when my wife is not about - as this will worry her to death. Much of this appears to be a log of telephone calls (page after page) and there are letters (undated) perporting to be letters of assignment that are NOT on a letterheading and as far as I am concerned do not look at all genuine. These are marked 'representative of a letter sent to customer' and have a date written next to this! What is this meant to mean - that they aren't true copies but merely something they have conjured up?

 

Despite Morgans stating that this bundle now satisfies my CPR 31.14 request, I can see nothing here that complies, although Morgans claim to have sent me credit agreements and other documents I requested previously. Why am I not surprised that I have never received that information nor in fact some of the letters they claim to have sent that are copied in the bundle.

 

There are no statements of the accounts so I cannot verify any payments etc and there seems to be nothing to substantiate the claim they have made in their POC. There is also scores of pages that looks like an assignment where most of the information has been blacked out (redacted). Again, these are typed copies and are not printed on an identifiable letterhead.

 

I am extremely suspicious of the items they have sent me and before I consider my next move I desperately need to request the help of other members who may have been in this position or know how I should react please.

[toymaker1]

I have now received a large bundle of documents from Morgans, I am having great trouble making head-nor-tail of most of these but will study them in more detail over the next few days

There is also scores of pages where most of the information has been blacked out (redacted).

 

I am extremely suspicious of the items they have sent me and before I consider my next move I desperately need to request the help of other members who may have been in this position or know how I should react please.

 

 

 

You might be interested to read the following Post 369 dated 2nd June 2011 20:36 by Brassed off. :-

 

"The case was actually dismissed at the Final Hearing

 

Morgans/Cabot (or Cabeau as they were referred to by the usher and Judge, hence P1's ref above - I am reliably informed that it means "mutt" - that figures!) were given a very hard time by the Judge. He was obviously very much "up" on Consumer Law.

 

He tore into them from the very beginning about the heavily redacted "Account Supply Agreement" (Assignment) and asked where the original was. Morgans said that they may be able to find it somewhere and he said "so you don't know where it is then" and they replied that they may be able to lay their hands on it. He asked them by what law were they able to blank out so much of the document and they said that it was "Company Policy" to do that. When asked why, they said it was because there was "commercially sensitive information" on there. He wasn't pleased about that either and asked them, once again, by what law to which they admitted, there wasn't one. My name (in fact, nobody's name) appeared anywhere on the Assignment and mine was printed on a separate sheet which could have come from anywhere which he pointed out to them. There was a "Schedule" referred to in the Assignment which said that it was attached "hereto" - it wasn't. When he asked Morgans where this schedule was they said that they were sent the information on two "Data Discs" - he wasn't happy about that either as this information should've been available in document form and presented at the hearing.

 

He also wasn't happy that I had ever received a Notice of Assignment as they had no proof of this. Again, all they had was a photocopy of a template letter. He picked up on the fact that the OC's name was spelt incorrectly too (I'd missed that!).

 

He did touch on the Agreement but only briefly, just stating that one of the prescribed terms was incorrect (the repayments were out by pence) but didn't elaborate. He just kept going back to the heavily redacted Assignment.

 

Morgans pulled a few tricks before the hearing, the first one being a letter to me last Friday with a Claimant's Statement of Costs for £6,500 - no joke! I did have a little wobble on this as I had decided to go to the final hearing without anyone representing me. In some respects, I think that was a wise move.

 

When I got to the court, I was asked by the security guard if I wished to speak to the representative from Morgans and I said that I had taken legal advice and wouldn't be speaking to them. About ten minutes before the hearing was about to take place the security guard came to me and said that he had been given two documents to give to me by Morgans. They were two court cases, namely Wilson v Hurstanger (which I already knew about) and a little known Northern Irish case. I took a quick glance at the Irish one and just put it to the back of the Trial bundle.

 

There were no originals presented of anything, it was all photocopies.

 

When my claim was allocated to the SCC, this judge made Cabot amend their POCs twice. From the orders that he sent out, I could tell he was not a happy bunny. Unfortunately, at my preliminary hearing, I got a different judge who basically told me to just pay up and stop wasting the court's time.

 

I'm glad that it went to a final hearing and I got the original judge.

 

To be honest, I never got a chance to say hardly anything. All that work I'd put in swatting up! I think he had their cards marked before we got in there.

 

This was an eleven year old debt for a computer that never really worked right from the start. I did get ticked off by the judge for not mentioning the fact that it didn't work properly in my Defence but as it was so long ago, I wasn't sure it was relevant at the time and only brought it up at the preliminary hearing. I'd already paid half the amount to the finance company before losing my job and being unable to pay. Cabot had added at least half again in interest which was picked up on and they admitted their "error" and took the interest off, therefore halving the debt.

 

I did make an offer to stop it getting this far and they refused it. Bad move IMO.

 

So case dismissed, no costs awarded to either party. It really is "end of" so to speak. Only taken 12 months of pure stress!

 

I enquired about obtaining a transcript of the final hearing as to be honest, so much was said by the judge, I couldn't write it all down quick enough.

 

Just for info, if you require a transcript, if you ask the court, they will send you out a list of their recommended transcribers. You choose the one you want, fill in a form from the court, the court send the recording to the transcriber, they type it up and send it back to the court who get the judge to OK it, then it gets sent out to you. It's not cheap but if there are any of the CFC reading this, we could all chip in .........

 

 

 

I honestly think justice was done - I could've kissed that judge at the end

 

There are a few special people who have helped me through this. I don't need to thank them on here as I've already done that behind the scenes. You know who you are "

 

Sounds useful to you.

Best of luck

[heathrow]

Blimey toymasker1, so many thanks to you for this ... it is brilliant and doesn't sound that far removed from what they are doing to me. There are probably 30 pages of relentless telephone calls to listed, most of them automated and, as I recall many were siltent calls. So, surely, that in itself could be constued as criminal harassment especially as I told them over and over again that I would only respond to personal letters? The trouble with these matters is that we are largely in the hands of the judges and their interpretation of the laws. If they aren't having a good day then they seem to be on the side of the Claimants regardless which makes the whole system a real sham. It should not be like pot luck but it is.

 

I still haven't been provided with a true copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement in this claim for either of the credit cards they allege I owe and my guess is that they haven't got them. As your post states ... the documents they have sent do not contain my details and the retracted sections ... many pages of it ... makes no sense to me at all. It will take me several days to read through the content to try and deduce what they are trying to claim. I think they are trying to take advantage of the fact that I am a layman,

 

It is time to make a stand to fight these henchmen..

[toymaker1]

Blimey toymasker1, so many thanks to you for this ... it is brilliant and doesn't sound that far removed from what they are doing to me. There are probably 30 pages of relentless telephone calls to listed, most of them automated and, as I recall many were siltent calls. So, surely, that in itself could be constued as criminal harassment especially as I told them over and over again that I would only respond to personal letters? The trouble with these matters is that we are largely in the hands of the judges and their interpretation of the laws. If they aren't having a good day then they seem to be on the side of the Claimants regardless which makes the whole system a real sham. It should not be like pot luck but it is.

 

I still haven't been provided with a true copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement in this claim for either of the credit cards they allege I owe and my guess is that they haven't got them. As your post states ... the documents they have sent do not contain my details and the retracted sections ... many pages of it ... makes no sense to me at all. It will take me several days to read through the content to try and deduce what they are trying to claim. I think they are trying to take advantage of the fact that I am a layman,

 

It is time to make a stand to fight these henchmen..

 

I thought that might interest you.

 

Generally speaking, Cabot's witness statements (usually very very thick and impressively scary looking) can be broken down into 4 parts, namely;

1. Hundreds of pages which are neither here nor there, such as routine account statements etc which indicate nothing in particular about the issues in the case.

2. dozens of pages of indecipherable computer data ( which never gets challlenged by the judge, even though it is flagrantly outside the rules of disclosure etc).

3. specimen templates of what the real documents in the case would look like, if the Claimant actually had them in his possesion, - which he doesn't, but which again, the judge never challenges !

4. the actual substantive documents which directly relate to the issues, and which could destroy their case - for example contractual evidence between the OC and Cabot showing that the debt was never valid to have been assigned by the OC. However, those really juicy relevant bits are always blacked out (redacted). - and are usually dozens of pages. Yet again, the judge rarely challenges this, even though it is not legally privileged.

[heathrow]

Sorry toymaker1 maybe I am being a bit thick but what does the OC stand for?

 

Thanks again for the kind input. So, if the judge never challenges the validity of their evidence I guess that leaves it to me to put the questions and try and tear this apart? Hmm. Should I also contact the Claimant again and state that they still have not sent me documents I rely upon such as the CCA?

 

The District judges in the main do not sppear to have much experience or knowledge in these matters more especially as many of them are promoted solicitors rather thsn former barristers.

 

 

Thanks again.

[toymaker1]

Sorry toymaker1 maybe I am being a bit thick but what does the OC stand for?

 

Thanks again for the kind input. So, if the judge never challenges the validity of their evidence I guess that leaves it to me to put the questions and try and tear this apart? Hmm. Should I also contact the Claimant again and state that they still have not sent me documents I rely upon such as the CCA?

 

The District judges in the main do not sppear to have much experience or knowledge in these matters more especially as many of them are promoted solicitors rather thsn former barristers.

 

 

Thanks again.

 

Sorry, the OC is the Original creditor, - the company which sold the debt to Cabot. In the sales contract between the OC and Cabot, there is often, for example, a section relating to whether the account is eligible to be assigned, sold on. It is obviously relevant information for you to know, but you will find it is blacked out.

[heathrow]

Okay, thanks for that.

[heathrow]

I would appreciate some advice on how to make my next move.

 

The bundle sent to me by Morgans does not seem to provide any concrete proof that they either own the debt or any information on how they have arrived at the figures they are claiming. They still have provided no copies of the CCA. I believe this is a deliberate attempt to deceive both the court and myself. They still haven't forwarded any CPR31.14 information I have requested despite claiming to have done so previously.

 

Should I write to them again or should I report the matter to the Court by informing them that Morgans are refusing to cooperate with my CPR demands?

 

 

Should I write to them again seeking this information or report their lack of disclosures to the Court

[heathrow]

I have following simongee's posts which are similar. The bundle I have received from Morgans contains templated documents. Is anyone able to respond to my last post please before time runs out.

[toymaker1]

I have following simongee's posts which are similar. The bundle I have received from Morgans contains templated documents. Is anyone able to respond to my last post please before time runs out.

 

As far as I understand it, the original documents, or true copies of the original documents must be available at the trial, - not templates of what the claimant believes the documents would look like if he had them in his possession, which he apparently does not. Make sure you point this out to the judge. Also the thing about two separate claims being represented to appear to be one (non-existent) claim.

[heathrow]

Thanks toymaker1. Any help I can get on this is truly appreciated.

[consumeredge]

Hi heathrow

 

Simons's hearing is set for early May.

 

Write to Cabots and request again the documents as per CPR 31.14, also ask for a updated and complete copy of Cabot Europe's case history to show all telephone calls and correspondance between Cabot Europe and the Defendant.

 

The reason I say that is because Cabot only submit a copy (printout) of all telephone calls and correspondance between Cabot Europe and the Defendant up to the point of issuing the summons, as with Simon's case there is no record of the letters sent to Cabots from Simon or their replies (Blanked out), this paints a picture the Defendant never responded to calls or letters, when in fact many people have never heard of the Claimant until the summons lands on the doorstep.

 

As you have previously sent recorded delivery you can verify what was received and note if they responded.

 

Could be useful to prove to the court you made repeated efforts to gain information yet the Claimant suppressed this information by blanking out entries

 

Could you post up the printout of all telephone calls and correspondance between Cabot Europe and the Defendant

[heathrow]

Thanks consumeredge ... greatly appreciated. I have print outs of about a dozen pages from their computer for each account (something like 650 entries I guess) that I haven't had the opportunity to scrutinize fully yet.buy will hopefully tomorrow. I have to do this when my wife is at work otherwise the panic sets in and as you might appreciate she can't cope with all this pressure - and I am starting to get the same as I am not in brilliant health. Cabot used to call me several times a day at my business (when I had it) and after taking a few calls with other people present including the occasional client I informed them in writing to only deal with me by letter as I was not prepared to discuss anything concerning financial matters on the telephone. This probably goes back about 2-3 years even more. I have a feeling that I was wrongly sold PPI on both of these accounts so need to establish this but all the statements got mixed up and lost somewhere along the line when I had to move out of my premises in a hurry.

 

The thing is, if the DCAs played by the rules and did not employ threatening and harassing tactics it might have been possible to deal with these problems sooner rather than later when they arose - but they never do this and seldom will respond to letters as we all know. The entire ethos of DCAs needs addressing by the Government and the Financial Ombudsman with view to outlawing this entire evil industry and make the banks pay for their own irresponsibilty of lending too much without adequate checks. Okay, I accept that we must also take responsibility but it begars belief how a DCA can pay something like 10p in the £1 for buying a credit card debt and be legally entitled to pursue you for the original amount by any means that they choose plus interest. It does not seem right in contract law let alone moralistically. But before the laws change (if they do) we have to stick together to fight the bastards. Sorry for the rant!

[heathrow]

My hearing by the way is set for June.

[heathrow]

Your opinions on the following will be appreciated folks. I have tried to keep this as short & concise as I can.

 

I have now had the opportunity to study at the large bundle sent to me by Morgans relating to one of my accounts and much relating to the second account follows the same pattern I have outlined below. This contains over 300 entries of computer data on one account alone which is mainly dribble that relates to hundreds of telephone calls made to me, the majority appear to be automated or not answered. This proves what a nuisance they have made of themselves - surely is this not construed as harassment?

 

It seems that Morgans are doing nothing more than attempting to bamboozle me and the Court with paperwork that has no substance and seems to me to offer no evidence. Interesting ... they record a conversation (though purported to be to a woman) during May 2010 who told them I would only deal with Cabot (or whoever?) by letter. I had previously written to them at length to say that I did not wish to be called by phone and that I would refuse to speak to them although I would respond to personal letters. This instruction was totally ignored and they continued making calls, sometimes several a day. As it seems a large proportion of these were 'silent calls' I responded by changing my telephone number to I presume they were calling the answer service I used for my former business.

 

There is a note on the data to say that the balance was assigned to Cabot (presumably?) in October 2009. Various correspondence has been noted on their computer data which is interesting.

 

They record receiving my letters requesting CPR information and while they record 'Hello' letters and such like sent to me, there is no mention of either Cabot or Morgans responding to my CPR requests as they claim and my guess is that they were ignored. Similarly, data states receiving my letter requesting the Notice of Assignment but again. nothing shows that this was also ignored. If these items were sent ... then why then does their data not say so?

 

Despite their claims, there is also mention of something listed as a 'goodbye letter' and another referred to as a 'lazy letter' that they note were sent to me but I have no clue what these are. There is also a note stating they had applied to Norwich Charging Order Unit, but this is later referred to as an 'error - wrong account noted'.

There is an entry that states 'Judgement type number 5' - Any ideas? Another entry states 'CPC claim with Charging order as proposed enforcement action'.

 

From time-to-time the data mentions 'interest applied' but also entries that say 'interest amended from 0% to 0%'. Strange!

 

Attached to the bundle is a photocopy (or facsimile) of what is claimed to be a 'Receivables Sales Agreement' that contains 43 pages, the majority of them redacted. There is nothing on this so-called document to suggest it is anything other than a template document and it contains no account number of anything else to connect it to me or to any account I may have had.

 

There are also 'representations' of a Cabot letter and a facsimile letter of a letter on plain paper purported to be from Capital One. There are similar documents for the second account that they have lumped on the same POC. There are several pages containing a single line with a balance that I guess they are claiming represent statements but they mean nothing and there is a facsimile page of 'Information' that is meant to apply to a Cabot assignment notice.

 

The letter from Morgans states that this bundle is 'The Letters Before Action suffice as evidence of a demand for payment prior to the issue of proceedings' but I can find nothing that can reasonably be termed as evidence whatsoever. They have also stated that a 'clearer copy of agreement has been requested' from one of the two accounts and anticipate disclosing this shortly and that a 'redacted copy' of the other account sale agreement is being retrieved from their store.

Morgans are remain adamant that they have previously satisfied my CPR 31.14 requests - despite no record of this on their computer print-out - but I can categorically state that I have never received any of the information requested.

 

It would be an understatement to say that this whole bundle of documents contains nothing that I can see as useful in proving a case. To the contrary, it appears to me that they are merely demonstrating how they have failed to comply with the law and to follow correct procedure.

[toymaker1]

Your opinions on the following will be appreciated folks. I have tried to keep this as short & concise as I can.

 

I have now had the opportunity to study at the large bundle sent to me by Morgans relating to one of my accounts and much relating to the second account follows the same pattern I have outlined below. This contains over 300 entries of computer data on one account alone which is mainly dribble that relates to hundreds of telephone calls made to me, the majority appear to be automated or not answered. This proves what a nuisance they have made of themselves - surely is this not construed as harassment?

 

It seems that Morgans are doing nothing more than attempting to bamboozle me and the Court with paperwork that has no substance and seems to me to offer no evidence. Interesting ... they record a conversation (though purported to be to a woman) during May 2010 who told them I would only deal with Cabot (or whoever?) by letter. I had previously written to them at length to say that I did not wish to be called by phone and that I would refuse to speak to them although I would respond to personal letters. This instruction was totally ignored and they continued making calls, sometimes several a day. As it seems a large proportion of these were 'silent calls' I responded by changing my telephone number to I presume they were calling the answer service I used for my former business.

 

There is a note on the data to say that the balance was assigned to Cabot (presumably?) in October 2009. Various correspondence has been noted on their computer data which is interesting.

 

They record receiving my letters requesting CPR information and while they record 'Hello' letters and such like sent to me, there is no mention of either Cabot or Morgans responding to my CPR requests as they claim and my guess is that they were ignored. Similarly, data states receiving my letter requesting the Notice of Assignment but again. nothing shows that this was also ignored. If these items were sent ... then why then does their data not say so?

 

Despite their claims, there is also mention of something listed as a 'goodbye letter' and another referred to as a 'lazy letter' that they note were sent to me but I have no clue what these are. There is also a note stating they had applied to Norwich Charging Order Unit, but this is later referred to as an 'error - wrong account noted'.

There is an entry that states 'Judgement type number 5' - Any ideas? Another entry states 'CPC claim with Charging order as proposed enforcement action'.

 

From time-to-time the data mentions 'interest applied' but also entries that say 'interest amended from 0% to 0%'. Strange!

 

Attached to the bundle is a photocopy (or facsimile) of what is claimed to be a 'Receivables Sales Agreement' that contains 43 pages, the majority of them redacted. There is nothing on this so-called document to suggest it is anything other than a template document and it contains no account number of anything else to connect it to me or to any account I may have had.

 

There are also 'representations' of a Cabot letter and a facsimile letter of a letter on plain paper purported to be from Capital One. There are similar documents for the second account that they have lumped on the same POC. There are several pages containing a single line with a balance that I guess they are claiming represent statements but they mean nothing and there is a facsimile page of 'Information' that is meant to apply to a Cabot assignment notice.

 

The letter from Morgans states that this bundle is 'The Letters Before Action suffice as evidence of a demand for payment prior to the issue of proceedings' but I can find nothing that can reasonably be termed as evidence whatsoever. They have also stated that a 'clearer copy of agreement has been requested' from one of the two accounts and anticipate disclosing this shortly and that a 'redacted copy' of the other account sale agreement is being retrieved from their store.

Morgans are remain adamant that they have previously satisfied my CPR 31.14 requests - despite no record of this on their computer print-out - but I can categorically state that I have never received any of the information requested.

 

It would be an understatement to say that this whole bundle of documents contains nothing that I can see as useful in proving a case. To the contrary, it appears to me that they are merely demonstrating how they have failed to comply with the law and to follow correct procedure.

 

The material you have described is exactly the same in every Cabot claim. I cannot understand why the courts/judges continue to allow their flagrant and total breaches of the rules of court. Cabot seem to exist in a strange legal world where they never get challenged on the things you have described. for example the endless pages of undecipherable computor data, meaningless telephone logs, joining together separate and unrelated claims to represent them as being a single claim, no actual allegation r evidence of wilful default. blacking out all entries which might damage their case. etc etc.

[heathrow]

How then can this be challenged then do you think toymaker1?