vjohn82 vs. Citi Card/Cabot/Morgans (court claim)

[vjohn82]

Hi all,

 

This is not "my" debt (I've been helping a friend for a long time with various issues due to their cancer diagnosis) but I'll be the litigation friend if court action continues.

 

Here's the POC:

 

The Claimant is the Assignee of a Debt(s) from

CitiFinancial Europe Plc

Credit Card reference XXXXXXX,

Notice of Assignment having been given to the

Defendant in writing. Despite demand for

Payment, 2739.43 remains due. The

Claimant claims 2894.43 and interest under

s.69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs.

(word for word)

 

• Claim issued 22/12/2010. AOS 15/01/11.
   
  
• CPR 31.16 sent to Cabot/Morgans on 15/01/11.
   
  
• SAR sent to Citi Card on 15/01/11.
  

 

POTENTIAL ISSUES:

 

• Potentially no default notice served. I have been forwarded all letters from Citi Card and no DN was ever passed/sent to me.
   
  
• The figure comprises of a number of default/over limit charges over 12/14 months.
   
  
• The NOA cannot be accurate if the figure is stated incorrectly and therefore proper assignment has not been attained by Cabot.
   
  
• Citi Cards were CCA'ed in 2010; they provided no signed copy, only a reconstituted set of documents. It is not known, at this stage, when the account was set up.
  

[broken arrow]

Have you drafted a defence yet VJ.

Edited January 16, 2011 by broken arrow

[vjohn82]

Hve you drafted a defence yet VJ.

 

Nope... learning from experience here.

 

No point drafting a defence until they have supplied some documents to work with. I indicated in the AOS that there is an intention to defend the claim in full essentially because the assignment is not correct (due to the charges issue), there is no DN and the CCA has not been supplied. Plus the "other" issue I highlighted in the email.

[broken arrow]

I presume then you will be requesting for an extension to file the defence?

[coledog]

I cannot believe that someone is finally attempting to present a Citi account to a judge! Am certain that they get CCJs by default but Citi are distinctly lacking in the documentation department and I would closely check the Re-con and question how many times the T&C were varied during the life of the account. You need to find out when the account was started as it was probably with the Associates and push the SAR with Citi. Read PT's thread on CPR carefully.

 

Read the Citi forum threads.

 

Glad you are looking at this one!

[cymruambyth]

Will be following this with interest for when cabot start sending these to all their Citi customers!

[broken arrow]

There was this little victory CD

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?147147-Being-taken-to-Court-by-HFO-Services-Please-help-Advice-needed-**WON**

[vjohn82]

I presume then you will be requesting for an extension to file the defence?

 

I've acknowledged online and requested the extra 14 days to file the defence. If they supply no documentation then we'll request a further extension. If they file for a default judgement we'll file for a strike out for a lack of documentation or apply for a stay until such a time all of the documents are in order.

 

I cannot believe that someone is finally attempting to present a Citi account to a judge! Am certain that they get CCJs by default but Citi are distinctly lacking in the documentation department and I would closely check the Re-con and question how many times the T&C were varied during the life of the account. You need to find out when the account was started as it was probably with the Associates and push the SAR with Citi. Read PT's thread on CPR carefully.

 

Read the Citi forum threads.

 

Glad you are looking at this one!

 

Read PT's CPR - Part 18 will be more than useful (as it was when I took on HFO) and the very little used CPR 32.18 and 32.19 ;-)

 

I'll be waiting to see what happens on the doc front and probably speak to the respective organisations now that they have the letter of authority.

 

They have been made a monthly offer simply because of the defendant's financial situation, medical prognosis and wish to avoid legal proceedings going the full stretch. Cabot are flogging a dead horse with this one, the defendant's have no money and the guy survives on disability payments right now along with a massive negative equity shortfall in their house.

 

If they want to play hard ball I'll give 'em hell for as long as I can and show them up... they know that the defendant has terminal cancer for goodness sakes... I sent them the NHS medical report when they had referred the account to Clarity last year. Cretinous behaviour when you think about it.

[coledog]

Absolutely disgusting - what are they going to get - £1 per month? I think that you need to lodge some complaints with OFT - vunerable persons guidelines for a start.

[vjohn82]

Absolutely disgusting - what are they going to get - £1 per month? I think that you need to lodge some complaints with OFT - vunerable persons guidelines for a start.

 

They've been made a more than acceptable offer. The defendant was recently taken to court previously... upon seeing the state of his financial affairs (some £40,000 of liabilities without mortgage) the creditor was forced to accept a token payment each month and was castigated by the Judge for not taking into account the exceptional circumstances.

 

No shame some of these companies... Cabot will probably moan that Michael McIntyre not performing for them was insulting and unprofessional... how nice for them.

[pt2537]

speaking from experience of not ever losing to these particular claimants, i would comment as follows

 

They dont need a default notice ( Kings hill no1 vs Colin Morell) BUT, if they run the "we dont need a default notice argument" then you MUST do a certain thing.

 

I cannot say what on here, as i do not want them getting wise to it, as it will cause a headache or two.

 

I will email you when i get a sec

[pt2537]

oooh and i have a judgment soon that will give you an unfair relationship issue and could lead to a discharge of the debt, depending on the circumstances

[vjohn82]

Cabot/Morgans refuse to speak to me on the telephone as they claim they have not received the letter of authority; this is despite the court confirming that my name on the Acknowledgement of Service is also sufficient information for the company to go on.

 

The guy on the phone was also asking some very rude questions, I felt, and he was quite hostile. Sounded American too, and old. Bizarre. I thought they only employed people with ASBOS or learning difficulties? Oh, hang on, employing Americans is still cheaper (legal disclaimer - this is satire).

 

However, bit of welcome news from the court... they have accepted the AOS and we need to file a defence by the 24th. I doubt that Cabot will respond the Part 18 request prior to then...

 

Any advice on what to do in the meantime folks? Holding/embarrassed defence? Try to extend the defence filing period by another 28 days as per CPR 15.5?

[broken arrow]

Good news about the AOS I was a bit concerned, personally I would go for submitting a defence, I doubt they would agree to an extension, the other option you mentioned has its risks, I learnt that one the hard way, although in the end HFO did me a favour.

 

At least submitting the defence puts the ball back in to their court.

[vjohn82]

Good news about the AOS I was a bit concerned, personally I would go for submitting a defence, I doubt they would agree to an extension, the other option you mentioned has its risks, I learnt that one the hard way, although in the end HFO did me a favour.

 

At least submitting the defence puts the ball back in to their court.

 

I'll give them until the 23rd to provide a response to my queries. If they do not then I shall file the embarrassed defence. If they respond but do not forward the appropriate information then they should agree to an extension. If not, it just looks unreasonable.

[pt2537]

Re fax them a copy of the authority to deal with the matter,

 

then ask them that since you have made a formal request, that they have the courtesy to reply to that request confirming their position in respect of the extension or you will be forced to consider an application

[vjohn82]

Will do.

[vjohn82]

Here's the defence to be submitted today... any thoughts?

 

 

1. I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, who is the Defendant in these proceedings. I am duly authorised as a Litigant Friend to make this statement on behalf of the Defendant and I make the following statements in defence of the claim from facts within my knowledge; where the facts are not to my knowledge they are true from the best of my information and belief.

 

2. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the particulars of claim as it stands at present, inter alia;

 

3. The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not state an adequate statement of facts to the preceding attempts to obtain a payment or the alleged cause of action.

 

4. It is admitted that the Defendant has made use of a credit account in the form of a credit card managed by CitiFinancial Europe PLC (CitiCard) and it is admitted that the Defendant fell behind with payments due to exceptional circumstances that the original creditor was made fully aware of.

 

5. It is averred that the credit account is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; it is denied that there is a signed regulated credit agreement and the Claimant is put to strict proof of this in order to further their claim.

 

6. The Claimant is bringing proceedings for a balance of £2739.43 plus costs of which sum is not admitted or considered in any way accurate. The Claimant is put to strict proof of how the balance was accrued so that an assessment may be conducted to calculate the balance removed of unfair penalty charges and interest added therein.

 

7. The Claimant alleges that that a Notice of Assignment was given in writing. It is denied that a notice of assignment was received and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the method by which they obtained the account, as per s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 and proof of recorded service of said assignment as per s.196 of the same Act. Adequate proof would be the Notice of Assignment and the corresponding Deed of Assignment which assigned the benefit, rights and duties of enforcement for this chose in action.

 

8. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a Default Notice was served.

 

9. Any action taken under s.87 without a Default Notice being served upon a debtor is an unlawful repudiation of contract and not only prevents the court from enforcing any alleged debt, but also offers an option to counter claim for damages.

 

10. The Claimant has ignored a Part 18 request – dated 15/01/2011 which is two weeks prior to the submission of this defence - which was designed to disclose documents which could help to dispense of the claim or help further the Defendant’s ability to mount a defence. The failure to disclose information or expand upon the particulars of claim has harmed the Defendant’s ability to decide upon which action to take in these matters and is prejudicial towards their status as a Litigant in Person.

 

11. Therefore it is argued under the circumstances outlined above the claim is unwarranted and vexatious and the Claimant’s conduct is unreasonable and amounts to harassment under s.40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

12. It is respectfully requested that permission to amend this defence is given if the Claimant proposes any revision or addition to their statement of case as it stands or indeed releases information or paperwork which further clarifies their case.

 

13. Under the circumstances there is no other option but to defend the current claim, as it stands, because the Claimant has not clarified their case enough and in any event it is sincerely believed the Claimant has no lawful cause of action in these proceedings based upon the information that the Defendant has sourced from the original creditor.

[GuitarHero]

Going through a similar thing here.

 

Out of interest - why not file a N244 straight off the bat for lack of disclosure and strike out for no chance of success without 'true copy'.

 

Cheers.