Cabot- I think ive beat them?

[bushtuckerkid]

Hi Guy's.

 

I have had a saga going on with Cabot for the past couple of years.

Basically a ccj was entered against me by default, then a hearing was scheduled and it was set aside in September 10. I then received an assignment application, a subsequent hearing was scheduled for January 11. The Judge ordered not no late than 7 days prior to the hearing Cabot had to provide ORIGINAL signed agreements for the account in question.

Today i recevied a letter from Morgan Solicitors saying:

"We have reveiwed the matter and are proposing, on a commercial basis, that the claim be dismissed and there be no order as to costs. We enclose herewith consent order setting out these terms".

They then go on to ask can i sign and return if i agree.

 

Does this mean that i have won?

Also, if it does and i agree am i entitled to request that they remove adverse notes on my credit files and confirm in writting that this is done?

 

Thanks

 

BTK

[spamheed]

Hi Guy's.

 

I have had a saga going on with Cabot for the past couple of years.

Basically a ccj was entered against me by default, then a hearing was scheduled and it was set aside in September 10. I then received an assignment application, a subsequent hearing was scheduled for January 11. The Judge ordered not no late than 7 days prior to the hearing Cabot had to provide ORIGINAL signed agreements for the account in question.

Today i recevied a letter from Morgan Solicitors saying:

"We have reveiwed the matter and are proposing, on a commercial basis, that the claim be dismissed and there be no order as to costs. We enclose herewith consent order setting out these terms".

So basically they have never had the agreement and took you to court in the hope of obtaining a default judgement (which they did)

You obtained a set aside which effectively rolls this back to the point that you have never had a judgement made against you and now they have to go through the whole claim again but with the advance knowledge that you are defending and the judge has ordered disclosure of the original agreement (which they don't have)

 

They then go on to ask can i sign and return if i agree.

 

As they are not actually admitting anything, nor are they cl;arifying whether an agreement exists, nor if they are able to furnish one, - Be aware that some judges have granted judgements even without a CCA being disclosed, or they have allowed a reproduction, but the fact that Cabot/Morgan have defied or are unable to obey a court order (disclosure) it puts them very much on the back foot - they also seem very keen to avoid the question of costs

Does this mean that i have won? In theory and if you agree with their terms, then yes you seem to have won

Also, if it does and i agree am i entitled to request that they remove adverse notes on my credit files and confirm in writting that this is done? Yes, in fact it would be an idea to send them a counter offer which stipulates the removal of such information as part of the consent order, or even telephone Morgan with the suggestion if time is an issue

 

Thanks

 

BTK

 

It looks like this one is a winner, but if they withdraw now, is there anything to stop them simply selling it on to another bunch of parasites? Bearing in mind that it is they who have broached the subject of withdrawing, if they felt that they had even half a case, believe me they would continue, so that in itself is a positive thing.

 

However, I would suggest contacting Morgan and have them amend the consent order to include the removal of any adverse information/defaults etc and also offer an assurance that this account will not be transferred nor sold in any way whatsoever, it would seem prudent that you want finality of this matter in return for their not having to pay your costs

[Docman]

I would say you have won but why are you consenting to an Order? The correct procedure is for Cabot to issue a Notice of Discontinuence as set out in CPR 38. You can find this CPR on the Justice Ministry website at http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part38.htm

 

Of course, discontinuing means Cabot are liable for your costs and would need to obtain the permission of the court before bringing the same claim again. Sounds like they are trying to pull a fast one on you.

[spamheed]

My understanding after a set aside as in this case - is that the claim is returned to the point where they would be required to bring a new claim or have the original claim re-served, and since to date no defence has ever been served on Cabot by the OP, there would be nothing at this stage to discontinue.

 

IMHO Cabot are attempting to withdraw the claim before the OP can take any action which may leave Cabot liable for costs and the like when their case is found wanting - I would use this to get finality on the whole matter.

[bazaar]

theyve already had a default win against you, so be very careful what you sign and how you sign.

Have they applied to court to discontinue? No, ? Why not?

I wouldnt trust them at all on this.

IMHO, youd be beter off, telling them to follow correct procedures and apply to court for discontinuance, this has been rolling on for 2 years and they should rightly pay any costs due to them making a dubious claim.

[Last of the Mohicans]

My understanding after a set aside as in this case - is that the claim is returned to the point where they would be required to bring a new claim or have the original claim re-served,.

 

"Judgement" is set aside, not "the claim." The Claim still stands, and must be dealt with. A set-aside basically puts everything back to the point where the original summons was served, but *this time* the defendent responded and fought the claim.

[spamheed]

"Judgement" is set aside, not "the claim." The Claim still stands, and must be dealt with. A set-aside basically puts everything back to the point where the original summons was served, but *this time* the defendent responded and fought the claim.

 

If you're going to correct me then at least try to correct something I have actually said. I have not said that "the claim" is set aside - that would be as foolish as correcting something that nobody has actually said - What I did I say was that after a set aside the claim is returned to its initial state - where it can be re-served and the defendant given a proper opportunity to mount a defence. something which was denied them the first time.

 

Also, the OP hasn't fought the claim, the OP has simply been granted a set aside by the court, nothing has yet been won or lost.

[Last of the Mohicans]

If you're going to correct me then at least try to correct something I have actually said. ....What I did I say was that after a set aside the claim is returned to its initial state - where it can be re-served and the defendant given a proper opportunity to mount a defence. something which was denied them the first time.

 

 

I don't suffer from any comprehension problems Spam, nor was I trying to "win one" over you, but what you wrote was misleading, and thats dangerous when you're in the middle of something and some bunch of thieves is asking you to sign something.

I speak from experience: I've been through exactly this with Cabot and their chimps.

The claim does NOT have to be "re-served" - the claim STANDS, as originally put, and is contested on the basis that it was originally put - entirely logical if you think about it, otherwise the plaintiff could simply serve a differently set out claim, this time in full knowledge of what the defendent used to get the original claim set aside.

[spamheed]

I don't suffer from any comprehension problems Spam, nor was I trying to "win one" over you, but what you wrote was misleading you mean where I didn't say "the claim" was set aside?, and thats dangerous when you're in the middle of something and some bunch of thieves is asking you to sign something. If you're going to correct someone, make sure they actually said the bit you're claiming to correct - I have no problem being corrected when I am wronge, or if perhaps I have made a mistake of some kind but not this time, My opinion was and still is - correct after a set aside, the claim is taken back to its initial state where it would be re-served on the defendant - I

 

I speak from experience: I've been through exactly this with Cabot and their chimps. And so have I , and so am I still, however, you corrected something that I didn't say - how is that down to your "experience" with Cabot?

The claim does NOT have to be "re-served" - the claim STANDS, as originally put, and is contested on the basis that it was originally put - entirely logical if you think about it, otherwise the plaintiff could simply serve a differently set out claim, this time in full knowledge of what the defendent used to get the original claim set aside.

 

My final word: I suggest you read very carefully what has been written, BEFORE deciding to wade in, there is nothing wrong with the advise that has been proffered on this thread.

[bushtuckerkid]

Hi Guy's,

 

Getting a bit hot in here!

Thanks for all your replies, most useful.

I have sent a letter to Morgans requesting that they also remove adverse notes and assurance that the "account" will not be sold on. I wait for their reply.

 

To tell you the truth i am a little confused with some of the replies.

To be honest im not too bothered regarding costs as i havent really made a note of what they might be, wouldnt know where to start?

My main concer is that the judgment entered in default has obviously seriously affected my credit rating (Car finance at 46%!, declined a mortgage etc). It has put some strain on my marriage aswell, so really i just want the matter over. If i go down the CPR 38 route which seems to be the proper course of action would Cabot/Morgan decide to withdraw their order proposal and continue with the claim? This being the case, as SPAMHEED points out, a judge could declare in their favour even without an agreement?

Any suggestions?

 

Thanks

 

BTK

[bushtuckerkid]

Hi Guy's.

 

After my letter to Morgan Solicitors, yesterday i received the attached.

 

If i sign, does this mean the end of it?

 

Thanks

BTK

[bushtuckerkid]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23650[/ATTACH]

[bushtuckerkid]

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee200/walkaboutcreek/MORGAN1.jpg

[spamheed]

No mention of removing the defaults from your record, if you are happy with this then you would carry no liability for the account, so IMHO it looks like you are clear

[bushtuckerkid]

Hi, Thanks for your reply.

The default was entered in 2003 so came off last year(6years). The only thing that was showing was the ccj entered in default, but that too has now come off due to being set aside.

 

Thanks

[spamheed]

Sounds like a plan then, make sure you keep everything safe, just to make sure they don't forget