Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Cabot - morgan solicitors - help required


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4541 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

Hello I am new to this website and not very good with computers I couldn't find a button to start a new conversation. My dad has just received a claim form through Northampton cc from Cabot financial uk ltd via Morgan solicitors for a barclay card. Can he defend this action in anyway? Please help as we gave got no one else to turn to and he could loose his job. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

H I have asked the site team to start a thread for you.

 

We will need a lot more information on this to be

able to help your dad, if you can give us details without

identifying any personal data.

The claim pack will have a fair amount of information

on what to do, your dad must acknowledge receipt of

the claim, and then enter a defence the time limits are

shown with the forms.

  • Haha 1

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The form says "the claimant is the assignee of a debt(s) from Barclaycard. Credit card reference 27733**, Notice of assignment having been given to the defendant in writing. Despite demand for payment 4044.44 remains due the claimant claims 4209.44 and interest under s.69 Count Courts Act 1984 and costs." that is in the "particulars of claim section" of the 4 page letter he received

Link to post
Share on other sites

The form says "the claimant is the assignee of a debt(s) from Barclaycard. Credit card reference 27733**, Notice of assignment having been given to the defendant in writing. Despite demand for payment 4044.44 remains due the claimant claims 4209.44 and interest under s.69 Count Courts Act 1984 and costs." that is in the "particulars of claim section" of the 4 page letter he received

 

Hello

I am not a lawyer, but from what you have posted I cannot discern an issue in the Particulars of Claim of the the Claimant making a claim against your dad. That is to say, the Claimant's Particulars of Claim does not appear to identify anything which a court should be asked to decide upon.

For example, after identifying themselves as the owner by assignment of a credit card account in your dad's name, the Claimant appears to make a vague and unparticularised statement that despite demanding payment of an amount in an unspecified currency, an amount remains due.

 

I have lots of accounts where money "remains due", such as council tax, phone bill, credit cards, overdraft etcd etc - but the fact that some money remains due is not itself a matter of dispute between the parties.

If I was a judge, after reading the Particulars of claim I would ask the Claimant's legal representative what exactly he was complaining about. as he has not made any allegations against the defendant (your dad). - and he cant add any allegations at a later date, unless he amends his Claim.

 

Best of luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

I am not a lawyer, but from what you have posted I cannot discern an issue in the Particulars of Claim of the the Claimant making a claim against your dad. That is to say, the Claimant's Particulars of Claim does not appear to identify anything which a court should be asked to decide upon.

For example, after identifying themselves as the owner by assignment of a credit card account in your dad's name, the Claimant appears to make a vague and unparticularised statement that despite demanding payment of an amount in an unspecified currency, an amount remains due.

 

I have lots of accounts where money "remains due", such as council tax, phone bill, credit cards, overdraft etcd etc - but the fact that some money remains due is not itself a matter of dispute between the parties.

If I was a judge, after reading the Particulars of claim I would ask the Claimant's legal representative what exactly he was complaining about. as he has not made any allegations against the defendant (your dad). - and he cant add any allegations at a later date, unless he amends his Claim.

 

Best of luck

 

 

Whilst the claim particulars are vague and possibly need further clarification they are the same particulars used in 90% of the debt claim industry via MCOL. What is clear is that nobody should EVER and I'll stress EVER assume a judge will do the job for you and throw out a claim as being badly particularized.

 

Challenge it by all means seeking further clarification in writing and demand an extension to the time to submit the defence 14 days FROM the date you receive the information you need. CPR18 and CPR31.14 are your friend here as the case is not allocated to a track yet.

 

With the Poc's you've been given you can ask for a copy of the notice of assignment via the CPR31.14, you can seek clarification of what the debt was via a CPR18 question, the response to the CPR18 will allow you to make a further CPR31.14 to request the agreement they acknowledge in that response.

 

IMHO

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the claim particulars are vague and possibly need further clarification they are the same particulars used in 90% of the debt claim industry via MCOL. What is clear is that nobody should EVER and I'll stress EVER assume a judge will do the job for you and throw out a claim as being badly particularized.

 

Challenge it by all means seeking further clarification in writing and demand an extension to the time to submit the defence 14 days FROM the date you receive the information you need. CPR18 and CPR31.14 are your friend here as the case is not allocated to a track yet.

 

With the Poc's you've been given you can ask for a copy of the notice of assignment via the CPR31.14, you can seek clarification of what the debt was via a CPR18 question, the response to the CPR18 will allow you to make a further CPR31.14 to request the agreement they acknowledge in that response.

 

IMHO

 

S.

 

I was making the simple point that the Claim served on Simonr's dad - as it stands -

contains nothing which a court could decide on. For example, it makes no allegation of any default against his dad. The defendant should certainly ask for more info under CPR18, as without such info the claim as it stands contains absolutely nothing that a court could decide, in terms of the existence of any issue between the parties.

You are quite right that nearly every debt case is framed in exactly the same way, and I consider it is a national scandal, and shows that the legal system is not fit for purpose, insofar as the court system, right up to judge level, appears to permit this "rubber stamp" aproach to particulars of claim in debt cases.

Because it is a very specialised area which most of the population has no experience or knowledge of, it is allowed to continue unchecked.

If the Rules of court were strictly and properly applied, such practices would cease. - of course the chief victims of this sloppy aproach are litigants in person.

The result of this scandalously casual aproach to debt claims is that this case will be allowed to proceed to trial, and the court will automatically take the side of the claimant, and will presume that the defendant owes money to the claimant, even though, as I have pointed out, the claim actually is totally devoid of any specific complaint against the defendant.

It is a cosy little game played out between the debt companies and the courts, with litigants in person being the meat in the sandwich. If the rules were strictly observed, this claim would be thrown out as it stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my earlier post 10;

It is useful to compare the claim being made against simonr's dad with typical particulars of claim served by HMRC.

Generally, HMRC gets these absolutely correct, because they know that if they are slopppy their claim will be torn apart by a good lawyer.

For example,

HMRC will normally refer to an amount which is payable by the Defendant under the Taxes Act.

Compare that with the claim against simonr's dad, which simply asserts that "an amount remains due" from an unidentified person, with no legal basis or given.

HMRC will normally state the amount due in sterling. compare that with simonr's claim, where an amount in an unspecified currency is given by Cabot, which does not comply at all with the rules of court.

HMRC will nbormally give the particulars of claim which are relevant to that specific defendant. Compare that with simonr's claimm which is set out in the identical form for nearly all debt claims, As as been pointed out, they are identically set out for 90% of debt claims made by Cabot. even though each defendant will in fact have their own specific situtation.

It has become an accepted practice which is never questioned, so that now it has come to be regarded as normal procedure, whereas in fact it is a scandalous failure of the court system, which relies on the lack of knowledge and the fear of litigants in person, who do not have the knowledge to question these things.

I go back to my original point. There is absolutely nothing in the claim posted by simonr which a court should be asked to decide. - no issue whatsoever is indicated and there is no allegation of any default, so what is the Claimant's complaint then?

He cant start to make allegations of default in his witness statements if those allegations are not present in the original claim.

It has simply become custom and practise for the court system to ignore these serious deficiencies, which could be stopped instantly if the rules of court were properly observed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your help, I have sent the acknowledgement form to the court and stated that we intend to 'dispute' (cannot remember the exact wording) ALL OF THE CLAIM. How should I request more time to defend this action please??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your help, I have sent the acknowledgement form to the court and stated that we intend to 'dispute' (cannot remember the exact wording) ALL OF THE CLAIM. How should I request more time to defend this action please??

If you live in London, the citizens advice legal advice centre at the law courts in the strand is excellent. Phone them up to make an appointment. - does not seem as if there is anyone on this site who can help you.

Best of luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the CPR 18 and 31.14 please??

 

They are two different methods of getting disclosure of the other sides documents prior to reaching a court hearing..

 

Have a read of this:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?255329-CPR-part-18-vs-CPR-31.14-Confused-well-read-here

 

With CPR31.14 you can request ANY DOCUMENT that is mentioned in particulars of claim or statement of case, with CPR18 you can ask QUESTIONS about anything related to the case.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

You need to check all your dates. What date was the claim issued? You have a total of 33 days from that date to enter a defence. If you have not received any documents within this time scale you can request an extra 14 days under CPR3.15. If you have run out of time a judgement will have been issued by default.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a standard format for a defence, but not a form, unless you complete it online with a limited word count. You can plead that you cannot enter a defence as you have not received any documents. Check with the court asap and then you can have help as to what you can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

read this thread from pt who is a solicitor. It will give you some idea as to what you need to plead. It used to be the fashion for 'embarrassed defences', but this thread suggests alternative actions

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283443-Embarrassed-Defences-and-the-problems-with-them.

 

I'm in and out all day, but will try and help later (if no-one else has)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...