Cabot Court Claim Received

[1411mac]

Hi All,

 

I have a thread running on Debt Collection forum regarding Cabot but I have now received a claim form from Northampton CCBC, the original thread is below

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276752-Morgan-Stanley-Goldfish-Cabot

 

I am aware of the date for the acknowledgment of service, but wonder if in the meantime there is anything else I need to be doing, all I have received is an illegible application form with dodgy TCs and incomplete statements.

 

Regards

mac

[coledog]

Can you type up the particulars of claim or scan (with personal details and references removed). You will need a CPR request to the solicitors asking for documents depending on the POC.

[1411mac]

Particulare are:

 

'The claimant is the assignee of a debt(s) from Goldfish Bank Ltd

Credit card reference [cabot ref]

Notice of assignment having been given to the defendant in writing. Despite demand for payment xxxx.xx remains due.

The claimant claims xxxx.xx and interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs

[coledog]

Send the following letter to the sols - do not sign with your normal sig - send recorded and if no reply within 7 days send a reminder edit to suit

 

Dear Sir,

 

Re: (Claimant's name) v (Your name) Case No:

CPR 31.14 Request

 

On (date) I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the (Name) county court.

 

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

 

[Prior to the issue of proceedings I had delivered a request for the production of the agreement mentioned in the Claim Form and on which you rely. That request was ignored][delete if no such request was delivered]

 

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of [each of the following / the] document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

 

1 the agreement. You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reason of the provisions of CPR PD 16 para 7.3, where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any general conditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached.

 

2 the assignment

 

3 the default notice

 

[Although your claim is for a sum which is not more than £5,000.00 and will in all likelihood be allocated to the small claims track for determination upon my delivering a defence, at this moment in time I have not delivered my defence and the case has not been allocated to a track. In consequence the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect and you should not seek to avoid compliance with your CPR 31 duties by claiming otherwise]#

 

# delete if claim for a sum exceeding £5,000.00

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter. Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy. Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

 

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

 

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

 

If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing. You must tell me before the time for compliance with this request has expired. In telling me you require more time you must tell me what steps you have taken and propose to take in order to comply with this request and also state a date by when you will comply with this request. In addition your statement must be accompanied with a statement that you agree to an extension of the time for me to file my defence. Your extension of time must be not less than 14 days from the date when you say you will have complied with my request and you must state the new date for filing my defence.

 

If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request you must tell me in writing.

 

Please note that if you should fail to comply with this request, fail to request more time or fail to agree to an extension of time for the filing of my defence, I will make an application to the court for an order that the proceedings be struck out or stayed for non-compliance and a summary costs order.

 

I do hope this will not be necessary and look forward to hearing from you.

 

yours faithfully

[coledog]

Also have a look at the 'Sticky' threads in the legal forum as you will need to understand what is happening.

[1411mac]

Thanks for that, Coledog. I will send that off recorded today

Regards

mac

[1411mac]

Hi Again, All.

I sent off the CPR 31.14 which was signed for on 25/1/11.

Nothing heard so far, do I go ahead and acknowledge service? (Claim date 18/1/11)

rgds

mac

[coledog]

Yes - acknowledge service. Wait 7 days from receipt of the CPR request and send a reminder that they have not responded. Ring the court and ask the date by which you need to submit a defence

[1411mac]

Thanks will do. One thing I noticed is that I sent the CPR to morgans at the address on their letterhead and not the address on the claim, should I send another one to be safe?

[coledog]

Don't know why the addresses are different? The one on the claim form is the one I presume that you cshould use You can send a reminder to both with original letter attached

[1411mac]

OK Thanks

[1411mac]

Hi All,

I have now acknowledged service on line and I believe I have until 20th to submit my defence (will check with court on Mon)

No response from my CPR 31.14 request.

I now have to start thinking about my defence, my pain points on this are:

1. Copy of agreement is an application form (they even sent a copy of the original envelope), is not legible, is not signed by Morgan Stanley, has a blanked out area (which Cabot cannot explain as 'this is the only copy held on file by Barclaycard )

2. Incomplete statements (Cabot say 'copies of statements are no longer available. Under section 78 of the CCA there is no requirement to supply historical copies of docuements).

3. Terms and conditons. The copies sent prove no connection to me, the last page is endorsed by a publishing company that identify the copies sent are of a printers proof and dated after the signature date on the agreement.

4. The 'Notice of Assignment' from Goldfish shows no account number or balance.

I do not know if it is relevant but I have on file a copy of a Final Notice from Morgan Stanley dated jan 2006 which says 'you have not complied with the terms of the Default Notice and as a result your account has been closed.' - Dont know if this helps?

 

Any advice for my defence would be appreciated

 

rgds

mac

[poundster]

Subbing.

[pt2537]

did you make a section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 request?

 

If you did, then this paragaph may help

 

14. On or around the XXXXXX and in response to a letter from a third party “Cabot

Financial Europe Limited”, the Defendant made a request for information pursuant

tos78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) to the Claimant. The request was in

writing, was accompanied by the statutory £1.00 fee and was sent recorded delivery.

Proof of receipt has been retained.

 

15. The Claimant replied via its third party Cabot Financial Europe Limited on or around

XXXXXXX confirming that the documents requested were not in the Claimants

possession. But that attempts would be made to retrieve the documents and revert to

the Defendant in due course.

 

16. By letter dated XXXXX Cabot Financial Europe Limited enclosing what was

said to be the necessary documents in compliance with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act

1974.Cabot Financial Europe Limited stated that they were now entitled to enforce

the agreement.

 

17. For the avoidance of doubt the documents disclosed on the XXXXXX do not

constitute valid compliance with s78 (1) CCA 1974. Accordingly the Claimant may

not enforce the agreement against the Defendant, notwithstanding the issues pleaded

in paragraphs above.

 

18. The document referred to as the “credit agreement” a copy of which is annexed to this

amended Defence marked exhibit XX1 is not easily legible and therefore fails to

comply with Regulation 2 Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of

Documents Regulations 1983

 

19. No statement of account was provided

 

20. No terms applicable at the time of the purported assignment were provided.

 

21. Accordingly the Claimant is not compliant with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

22. The Defendant is unable to plead as to any deficiencies within the agreement , nor is

the Defendant able to properly assess the document disclosed as being the complete agreement by the Claimant and which the Claimant relies upon.

The Defendant accepts that further to the judgment of HHJ Platt’s in HFO v Patel and

HHJ Waksman Qc in Carey v HSBC that the Defendant should plead any issues

surrounding any allegations of improper execution emanating from the agreement.

However, since the only documents produced are so grossly illegible, the Defendant is

unable to plead as to any defects. This seriously prejudices the Defendant as the

Defendant is unable to assess if this document is complete, if there are other

documents referred to within it, if the statutory content required by s61 (1)(a) CCA

1974 and Regulation 2 and schedule 1,2 and 6 Consumer Credit Agreements

Regulations 1983 is present and accurate within the document which the Claimant

relies upon.

 

Now the above should be carefully considered, as it only deals with a breach of s78

 

ONLY INCLUDE IF CORRECT AND ENTIRELY ACCURATE

 

So if you received a statement of account with te s78 reply then point 19 is no use to you

 

Also, have you received notice of sums in arrears ? this is an additional point you can take issue with, and the notice is required by s86 (A-D) Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I hope this assists

[nicklea]

This is something that I did for somebody in a similar situation:-

 

In the XX County Court

Claim number XXXXXX

Between:

 

Capquest - Claimant

 

and

 

xxxxxx - Defendant

 

Defence

 

 

 

1. I am at a considerable disadvantage in preparing this defence in that the Claimant has failed to disclose any documents that are mentioned in it's statement of case or will otherwise be relying on in court.

 

2. On 5th November 2010 I made a request to the Claimant for disclosure of documents mentioned in it's statement of case pursuant to CPR31.14. To date, the Claimant has failed to respond.

 

3. Although the claim is for a sum which is less than £5,000 and will in all likelihood be allocated to the small claims track for determination upon my delivering a defence, at the time of making my CPR 31.14 request I had not delivered my defence and the case had not been allocated to a track. In consequence the provisions of CPR 27.2(1)(b) were of no effect at the time that I made my request and so it was unreasonable for the Claimant not to comply with my request.

 

4. As a result, I would respectfully request that the court consider using it's powers to either strike out the claim or stay it until such time as the Claimant responds to my CPR 31.14 request. As I am a Litigant in Person it would unfairly prejudice me if the Claimant will not disclose the documents that it seeks to rely on.

 

5. In order to prove its claim the Claimant must establish a number of matters. Firstly that there was an agreement between myself and Capital One, secondly that such an agreement complied with the requirements of Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”) and all consequential regulations made thereunder, both at the date of inception and at all times thereafter. Thirdly it must establish that Capital One complied with all of the provisions of the 1974 Act in that it must show that it served a proper default notice upon myself prior to terminating the agreement. Fourthly, it must establish that there was an “absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor” (S136 (1) Law of Property Act 1925). Fifthly that proper notice of any such assignment was given to the Defendant (S196 Law of Property Act 1925). Finally it must establish that the sums claimed are lawfully owing both at the date of the alleged assignment and at all other times.

 

6. It is submitted that it is the obligation of the Claimant to prove all of the above matters.

 

 

 

 

Existence of a Written Agreement

 

 

7. It is accepted that I applied for a credit card with Capital One and that an Application Form was completed. It is not accepted that the Agreement was reduced to writing and it is not admitted that a valid agreement containing all of the prescribed terms required by the 1974 Act exists. The prescribed terms are, pursuant to Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as to repayment, credit limit and rate of interest.

 

8. In such eventuality the absence of a written agreement containing all of the prescribed terms is fatal to the claim as the alleged agreement was entered into before the 6th April 2007, being the date when s15 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into effect. By operation of Schedule 3 of the 2006 Act the terms of S127 (3) of the 1974 Act are not repealed in respect of this alleged agreement and therefore render it unenforceable.

 

9. The Court’s attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 and Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897 both of which confirm that where a document does not contain the required prescribed terms under the 1974 Act and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) the Agreement cannot be enforced.

9. Further, it is noted that the 1974 Act provides that the prescribed terms cannot be found in a secondary document as according to section 61(1) (a),(b) & © the agreement must at the time it is laid before the debtor contain all the terms of the agreement (Wilson & another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299).

 

 

Valid Default Notice

 

10. It is a condition that prior to the issue of Proceedings in respect of a Regulated agreement that certain steps must be taken. Specifically those steps are the issue of a valid default notice complying with the terms of the 1974 Act and the issue of a valid termination notice, also complying with the act.

 

11. It is not admitted that either a valid default notice or termination notice was ever served on me and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

 

 

The Assignment of the Debt

 

12. It is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful. It is not accepted that notice was given to myself of the assignment and the Claimant is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself before proceedings commenced. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court (Compania Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1965] 1 QB 101).

 

13. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:-

 

136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

14. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

 

196. Regulations respecting notices.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

 

15. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to a registered letter is to be construed as meaning a letter sent by a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

16. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

 

 

 

17. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law to ensure that the Assignee can give good discharge (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824).

 

18. It is further averred that to be valid the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date, if any (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).

 

 

Sums Claimed

 

19. It is not admitted that any or all of the monies claimed are lawfully owing. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to how the sums claimed have been calculated and as to how those sums are lawfully owing.

20. Further, it is denied that any alleged contractual account charges and the contractual interest subsequently applied to those charges which have been claimed are lawfully owing in that it is submitted that the charges are a penalty in that they do not reflect any actual losses sustained by the claimant nor does it reflect realistically any actual costs incurredand so are in breach of the common law and, in any event, unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

21. In case the Claimant should attempt to justify these charges by reference to the Office of Fair Trading Report of April 2006 “Calculating Fair Default Charges in Credit Card Contracts” (“the OFT Report”) I would like to draw the court's attention to the detail of the OFT Report. The OFT Report did not state or give guidance that a level of £12 was fair; neither did it recommend this figure in any way, it was merely a statement of regulatory intent. The OFT Report set a threshold level of £12, below which it would not warrant regulatory intervention at that time (para 5.4 of the Report). The reason given for this was that their resources would be better directed at cases involving more serious economic detriment. Finally, the OFT Report specifically stated that the OFT had no power to constrain private civil actions or to determine what a court should decide (para 5.7) and that a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold (para 5.5).

 

 

22. In light of the above, it is not admitted that I am indebted to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I, xxxxx, Defendant believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true

 

 

Signed ......................... ...........

 

Dated: th November 2010

[1411mac]

Thabks for the replies, I will have a read of these carefully,

yes pt2537 I did make a request under s.77/78 CCA 1974 (in Nov 08 and was charged penalyt interest during the time no cca was provided which tipped my account over the £5k level!!)

Thanks

mac

[1411mac]

I do not think I received a notice of sums in arrears though, although I do not know what form this would take?

mac

[1411mac]

Hi All,

 

I have now received a reply regarding my CPR 31.14 request as follows:

 

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i27/ianmac_photos/morganletter.jpg

 

so the way I look at it as they didnt mention any documents in the POCs they do not have to provide anything to justify their claim???

They did send the usual application unreadble copy with incomplete statements.

So what's best for my defence, what do I need to defend? (Defence needs to be in by 20th) Shall I carry on by using the examples above?

Any help would be appreciated.

Also I have a feeling they may be using application from from an earlier account (which was paid) to claim on this one, especially as the statements dont add up so I would like to SAR them, do I send to Morgan Stanley, Goldfish or Cabot?

Any help would be appreciated

Rgds

mac

[1411mac]

bump please!

[1411mac]

Any advice, please??

Thanks

mac

[1411mac]

I have had a go at a defence and wondered if it is Ok to post it up for someone to take a look at

thanks

mac

[1411mac]

Bump? Anyone?

[1411mac]

Here is my proposed defence if anyone can give any advice as if it looks OK

 

In the County Court

Claim number Between:

 

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited - Claimant

 

and

 

- Defendant

 

Credit Agreement

1. On or around the xxxxxxxxxxxxx and in response to a letter from the Claimant Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited, the Defendant made a request for information pursuant to s77/78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) to the Claimant. The request was in writing, was accompanied by the statutory £1.00 fee and was sent recorded delivery. Proof of posting has been retained.

2. The Claimant replied on or around xxxxxxx confirming that the documents have been requested and that the original lender was experiencing a delay in retrieving the information from its archives.

3. By letter dated xxxxxxxxx Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited enclosing what was said to be the necessary documents in compliance with s77/78 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited stated that they were now entitled to enforce the agreement.

4. For the avoidance of doubt the documents disclosed on the xxxxxxxxxx do not

constitute valid compliance with s77/78 CCA 1974. Accordingly the Claimant may not enforce the agreement against the Defendant, notwithstanding the issues pleaded in paragraphs above.

5. The document referred to as the “credit agreement” a copy of which is annexed to this

amended Defence marked exhibit xx 1 is not easily legible and therefore fails to comply with Regulation 2 Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations 1983

6. Incomplete statements of account were provided.

7. No terms applicable at the time of the purported assignment were provided.

8. Accordingly the Claimant is not compliant with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

9. The Defendant is unable to plead as to any deficiencies within the agreement, nor is the Defendant able to properly assess the document disclosed as being the complete agreement by the Claimant and which the Claimant relies upon.

The Defendant accepts that further to the judgment of HHJ Platt’s in HFO v Patel and HHJ Waksman Qc in Carey v HSBC that the Defendant should plead any issues surrounding any allegations of improper execution emanating from the agreement.

However, since the only documents produced are so grossly illegible, the Defendant is

unable to plead as to any defects. This seriously prejudices the Defendant as the Defendant is unable to assess if this document is complete, if there are other documents referred to within it, if the statutory content required by s61 (1)(a) CCA 1974 and Regulation 2 and schedule 1,2 and 6 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 is present and accurate within the document which the Claimant relies upon.

Valid Default Notice

10. It is a condition that prior to the issue of Proceedings in respect of a Regulated agreement that certain steps must be taken. Specifically those steps are the issue of a valid default notice complying with the terms of the 1974 Act and the issue of a valid termination notice, also complying with the act.

11. It is not admitted that either a valid default notice or termination notice was ever served on me and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

The Assignment of the Debt

12. It is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful. It is not accepted that notice was given to myself of the assignment and the Claimant is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself before proceedings commenced. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court (Compania Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1965] 1 QB 101).

13. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:-

136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

14. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

196. Regulations respecting notices.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

15. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to a registered letter is to be construed as meaning a letter sent by a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

16. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

17. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law to ensure that the Assignee can give good discharge (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824).

18. It is further averred that to be valid the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date, if any (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).

Sums Claimed

19. It is not admitted that any or all of the monies claimed are lawfully owing. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to how the sums claimed have been calculated and as to how those sums are lawfully owing.

20. Further, it is denied that any alleged contractual account charges and the contractual interest subsequently applied to those charges which have been claimed are lawfully owing in that it is submitted that the charges are a penalty in that they do not reflect any actual losses sustained by the claimant nor does it reflect realistically any actual costs incurred and so are in breach of the common law and, in any event, unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

21. In case the Claimant should attempt to justify these charges by reference to the Office of Fair Trading Report of April 2006 “Calculating Fair Default Charges in Credit Card Contracts” (“the OFT Report”) I would like to draw the court's attention to the detail of the OFT Report. The OFT Report did not state or give guidance that a level of £12 was fair; neither did it recommend this figure in any way, it was merely a statement of regulatory intent. The OFT Report set a threshold level of £12, below which it would not warrant regulatory intervention at that time (para 5.4 of the Report). The reason given for this was that their resources would be better directed at cases involving more serious economic detriment. Finally, the OFT Report specifically stated that the OFT had no power to constrain private civil actions or to determine what a court should decide (para 5.7) and that a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold (para 5.5).

22. In light of the above, it is not admitted that I am indebted to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

Statement of Truth

I, xxxxxxxxxxxx, Defendant believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true

Signed ......................... ...........

Dated:

[nicklea]

If you were in written communication with Cabot before they issued proceedings then you cannot use the assignment argument

[pt2537]

If you were in written communication with Cabot before they issued proceedings then you cannot use the assignment argument

Questionable, if they wrote then that in itself does not satisfy notice, what if Cabot Europe wrote not UK, for example, what if they said Europe owns the debt when the Claimant is UK?

 

All of the above happened on the case which went to trial on the 29th October 2010 in Hastings, so merely writing doesnt cut the mustard, it has to be a little more than that