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

[cymruambyth]

Certain DJs will tell you that you are lucky that you only have to pay 12% as it is lower than the original agreement; they ignore all arguments about being notified in advance of a change of percentage or t&cs!

[heathrow]

Thanks everybody. Well, regarding exhange of documents, Morgan's WS now contains a whole heap of documents that were not included with the original bundle and I have found a few that I want to add concerning correspondence regarding PPI that was never dealt with by the original creditor.

[heathrow]

The majority of contributors to this forum, I am quite sure, do not get into debt because we want to.

 

For most it has been caused by life changing situations such as losing our jobs, a business failure, marriage breakdowns and the like.

These factors in themselves leave us extremely vulnerable.

It also leaves us wide open to the underhanded and frequently illegal tactics of the debt collection agencies

and their in-house lawyers who know they can wear us into submission by intimidation.

 

The more I read through the posts on this site the more I am convinced that the whole process of defending ourselves against powerful unscrupulous DCAs

who refuse to follow correct legal procedures is more often than not a complete lottery.

 

How many times, when our cases come to court and we attempt to defend ourselves are we faced with lies, illegalities and deceitful tactics that the judges simply ignore.

 

Conversely, if we fail to abide by any rulings and orders made by the courts we are severely reprimanded.

 

It seems to me, that in many County Courts, to be a defendant automatically makes us guilty in the eyes of the judges and rather than expect justice we are victimised.

In reality, how many of us go to court against a DCA expecting to win more especially if we are defending ourselves against tricky barristers?

 

When we lose, or even challenge the way we have been treated, the DCAs and their lawyers retaliate by loading their costs, interest and charges.

 

In my own case;

where I can prove I have been seriously harassed by telephone calls by one particular DCA for nearly three years

and can also prove they have not followed correct legal procedures,

 

I have now received an estimate of their costs in taking me to court in the Fast Track of over £5000, almost one third of their claim against me.

 

Courts are intimidating places for people like us - so where is the justice?

 

How can we consider defending this type of treatment when most of us are merely trying to live a daily existence against rising costs and cannot afford to be represented in court?

 

It is all a sham and the only people that ever win are the fat lawyers or those with sufficient financial clout to hire good lawyers.

 

I am hopeful that you will add your views to this thread so that we can debate if there is any way we can consider some way to even the playing field.

[rebel11]

Thread has been moved to the correct forum.

[heathrow]

I have now sent Morgans my WS - a lengthy affair, but a document that I nevertheless pick out the various areas where I consider they have failed to provide correct documentation or blatantly ignored the law and CPR. I have also highlighted how I consider I have been harassed by Cabot for more than 3 years by well in excess of 300 telephone calls. They have responded by sending me their Claimant's Listing Questionaire and an estimate of their costs that exceeds £5,000. Can anyone help by advising me how I am meant to defend this when I cannot even afford to be represented? I see this as their latest attempt to intimidate me into submission - either this or they feel their claim is shaky and by doing this they are hoping I will back down and settle.

[heathrow]

Thanks. Sorry, still a bit unclear about how to submit new threads.

[dx100uk]

to be honest i dont necessarily agree with you on all point

 

most dca and their 'fake/tame' solicitors are easily fended off and defeaed in court

if you go about it correctly.

 

also be careful using the word illegal - it is not - its unlawful

as these are civil cases.

 

as for 'charges' the ones levied for debt collection/letter/etc et all of them can be reclaimed

though WHY people even deal with a dca most of time amazes me.

 

90% of the time they can be totally ignored if they do not own the debt.

 

and even then, their paperwork or PENALTY charges by the OC or PPI reclsiming

blows then out the water

 

thats WHY the OC sold the debt in the first place -knew they had NO CHANCE in a court.

 

dx

[citizenB]

I would mostly agree with what you say. However, a lot of people havent sufficiently researched how they are going to approach their case.

 

You will see some threads where people just sit back and wait. Others participate with a passion.

 

You dont need to know the law, you just have to understand your particular case and whilst it might appear that one case is the same as another.. there will always be differences - even slight differences can make all the difference.

 

It is agreed, that there is some degree of Judge lottery but mostly it is the way in which a defendant presents their case that will win or lose the day.

 

If you are going to quote law - understand it and know what type of argument the other side will bring up to counter.

 

The other side will always try to complicate or muddy things - when in fact a lot of the time it is quite simple

 

Almost always, a claimant will use costs as a weapon and almost always this will have an effect on the defendant. Someone who is already scared/intimidated by a process they never ever dreamed they would be involved in are now confronted with the final weapon in the Claimant's armoury.

 

Yes, it is dreadfully unfair - financial institutions are prepared to throw huge sums at even the smallest of claim, they simply cannot afford to lose.

 

However, there are equally as many LiPs who have gone on to win or even if they lose, the huge costs claimed by the claimants have not been forthcoming.

 

There are several "famous" cases.. such as Harrison v Link. Mr Harrison sought an injuction against Link to prevent them harassing him and his family. Link decided to use their "might" and decided to counter claim for the debt they claimed was owed.

 

The original creditor was then brought into the claim - Link were chucking around figures such as £1million.. in costs.. but they did not reckon on a man who was absolutely meticulous in his record keeping and attention to detail. They were trounced in court and the Judge had some harsh things to say about the way in which Link conducted its business of Debt collecting.

 

Then there was American Express and Brandon. Brandon fought right up to the Appeal court in order to put his side of things and WON

 

There was also MBNA v Thorius - Bank of Scotland v Robert Mitchell and many others.

 

All LiPs originally facing huge sums in costs had they lost - but they didnt.

[citizenB]

I am not quite sure why you have started a separate thread in respect of this. Should it not be part of your original court thread ?

 

I will try as best I can to answer your questions anyway.

 

I do not think they can "ambush" with documents they have not previously mentioned.

 

It would make life a lot easier if terms and conditions did carry a date of issue - that would make it much easier for everyone .. strangely enough, including the creditors in establishing that the t&cs are accurately assigned to a date in time.

 

The new owner can only continue to add interest if there has been a clause in the original terms and conditions permitting this.

 

You should/could have counter claimed for the PPI if it were mis sold and the charges also.

 

Have you mentioned this in your defence/witness statement - have you created spread sheets showing the amount that would be owed if this had been repaid.

[heathrow]

Thanks folks for putting some good arguments. This is good healthy stuff so let's keep the comments coming because I feel this will give others the confidence to fight their corners.

 

Citizen B I'd like to see links to cases where the defendant's have won against these people. I have used the argument and quoted part of the judge's summing up in the Harrison -v- Link case on my witness statement to show how I have been harassed in much the same way by the DCA before they decided on issuing their claim.

 

Dx100k ... surely doesn't unlawful really mean the same thing as illegal because if something is unlawful ... it is not strictly legal if you get my gist?

However, I am basing my post on some of the horror stories I am reading on these pages whereby CAG members have researched their cases and put up strong opposition against Claimants only to find that when the case comes to trial there arguments, although accurate, are disregarded by the judge sitting. One of the problems as I see it is that many County Court judges are recently appointed from the ranks of solicitors and they may be specialists in some areas such as child law etc. but they can find themselves out of their depth when it comes to financial matters and so forth.

[heathrow]

Thanks Citizen B ... I have mentioned all of this in my WS and part of this contains letters as exhibits that were written to the original lenders but were never answered the the OC before the debt was allegedly sold. No, I haven't produced a spreadsheet although I can state the amount of PPI I was missold on the account where it was applied and I am still waiting for SAR requests including missing statements to be provided by Cabot. The Pre-Trial checklist attached to the Listing Questionnaire that Morgans has provided requires an estimate of costs and a copy of this has been sent to me that amount to in excess of £5,100. These figures could easily have been plucked from the sky as I see it and they are charging £190 an hour for issuing documents that, in the main, are redacted templates and computer prints outs of Cabot's activity on my account. The latter includes a record of the countless phone calls they have made to me. If you have the time to read through my thread I think you will start to understand the basics of this case as I have attempted to be as open as possible.

[citizenB]

If you have a look through the "legal issues" forum and seek out the titles that have **SUCCESS** or something similar then you will have some reading to do

[citizenB]

I am aware of the tactics used by Cabot/Morgans.. and they do fly by the seat of their pants, it is agreed.

 

I would think that you could possibly fight any major costs due to their being unreasonable.. will find the CPR for that later on.

 

I will also find time to read through your thread

[heathrow]

Will do. Thanks

[heathrow]

Thank you very much citizenB ... your kind help is much appreciated.particularly as I have recieved very few comments on this thread recently and more-or-less had to do my WS based on what I thought was right following considerable research. The statement is however 5,000 words long.

[dx100uk]

they are civil debts so in civil cases the correct term is unlawful

 

illegal is to do something that is wrong in criminal law - where you can be fined or end up in jail,

 

dx

[Michelangelo48]

I agree some case law n legal precedent whould be useful! ESP MBNA CASES PLS! TA!LOL.M

[citizenB]

Hi heathrow..

 

Okey dokey..

 

There are two accounts that Cabot have lumped together on one claim

 

B/shark and Capone.

 

you have not been provided any information / documents from either account although Cabot reckon they have sent it at some point - however there doesnt appear to be any record of this happening on their data print outs.

 

Interestingly they have provided you with a list of dates of calls made by automated methods, which the Judge in the Harrison v Link case, was rather critical of

 

Judge Chambers said: ‘Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the defendant went about recovering their debt.

‘I am satisfied that the claimant’s description of the way that he was hounded by his creditors is essentially correct, not least in the use of non-traceable telephone calls.

‘It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt.’

He suggested the tactics seemed to be designed ‘to make the claimant’s life so difficult that he would come to heel’.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362603/Judge-writes-customers-20-000-credit-card-debt-hearing-hounded-repay-money.html#ixzz1rZOy2V9r

 

xx

 

And you have proof that some 300 + calls were made.

 

From your thread, I cannot see how old these accounts are which would help in being able to work out why Cabot appear so reluctant to produce copies of the documents.

 

B/shark for instance the older documents appear to be those that were taken from mailshots.. whereby no terms and conditions were or could have been present and almost certainly were never provided at a later date. So that would definitely make the "agreements" unenforceable".

 

There is no mention of Default notices, whether they were issued by the original creditors or not and whether they were compliant or not. For sure, very few B/shark DNs were correct..

 

Capone had a habit of just copying and storing the signature that confirmed you agreed to their data exchange, but no other part of the document was saved !! I wonder why. A good few of Capone accounts suddenly found they had PPI applied, and all kinds of stories made up when challenging for refunds have been made.

 

Therefore I find it very difficult to understand how these two accounts could be heard as one and it should be resisted.

 

All I can say is, I hope that the other two cabot cases will be judged fairly and that Cabot are trounced well and truly, which may help in your case..

 

Did you ever do SARs (Subject Access Requests) to Capone, B/shark or Cabot ?

 

Is there time before your hearing do you think.. once sent they have 40 calendar days to provide you with the information requested.

[heathrow]

Okay ... thanks for clearing that one up dx100uk. Much obliged.

[heathrow]

Thanks for your response CitizenB

 

I have sent off my lengthy WS and the response has been for Morgans to send me their Listing Questionnaire (Pre Trial Checklist) that states they will using Counsel. They attached an estimate of their costs of over £5,100 with a load of garbage added to try and justify these charges. I fail to appreciate what costs they have really incurred apart from court issue fees because most of the documentation they have sent with their WS consists of statements for the two accounts and heavily redacted documents that do not mention me or any account numbers and copies of template letters.

 

I sent an SAR request to Cabot that they acknowledged on 26 March and I wrote to them today to say I would not accept a CD but required printed copies of the documents.

 

The court date is due to be set for sometime in June ... not yet decided but I will not be here for one week and have informed the court and Morgans of this. I would prefer to have more time to give me the opportunity to determine what the SAR disclosures will contain. Do you feel I can apply to have the month for trial moved back by applying to the court?

.

I have also contacted a mediation firm and may take this route to see what the outcome is.

 

I feel that Morgans are trying to further intimidate me with their estimated costs (£190 an hour) as this would intimidate many people!

 

In response to your other queries; As far as I recall the accounts were opened in response to mail shots. The B/Shark one was applied for in 2000; the other in 2004. I started to miss payments in 2006 and tried to establish a dialogue with the original lenders but got no response. Shortly after I started getting calls from Cbot that continued for almost 3 years. Surely this is harassment?

 

There is also PPI on one of the accounts that the OC has never repaid amounting to around £1000 and despite writing to them several times in or about 2006 they failed to respond.

[merlin100]

The key to winning has already been demonstrated in these posts - keep every letter, email etc sent by the DCAs. Exhaust all the legal processes first ( CCA, SAR etc and keep records of them). I read a lot of posts on here where it is pretty clear that a member has not kept all the correspondence, and/or used the legal processes to put a DCA "on the ropes" so to speak. By doing this before any court action, you would have already "struck out" most of the claims of a DCA, and on top of this you severely restrict any decietful tactics their lawyers may be considering.

[MANFACE]

DCA chasing me for some debt I have no knowledge of. Ignored the first letter. Second letter stated that I owed this debt and they will send a doorstop collector to my house WTF ? Took action: saw a template for a prove it letter from here forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3523655 Do not sign the letter, print your name . Had a reply back. All details removed , no more correspondence from them. Success. Will have to admit that this worried me and wife for weeks, but the DCA don't care.

[citizenB]

Hmmm, it would have been nice if you could establish the last time in 2006 that anything was paid.

 

I am not sure about mediation or whether you can have the hearing date set back. I guess you need to wait and see what date is given..

 

You say they acknowledged the SAR on 26th March, when did they actually receive it. That is the time from when you start counting

 

I still think that it should have been B/shark and Capone that you should have sent the SARs to.. Cabot wont even attempt to obtain anything from them.. only providing you with data that they have.

[heathrow]

Thanks for replying. I will take a look tomorrow and let you know when the last payments were made on the accounts. I have instigated the mediation; it will be a bit costly but I will possibly be able to judge their attitude if they agree to this and the courts claim that mediation should be attempted becasue they see the trial as the last resort. Re the SARs - they would have recived this on 23 March and I guess by 40 days the rules mean 'working days' and with Easter in between this has cost time. I have most of the statements from the Ocs but not all so do you think it is worth issuing SARS on them too?

[heathrow]

The problem is Merlin 100 we all know this in hindsight but most of us can be a bit lax at times or we lose correspondence etc. Like an idiot I had a lot of stuff stored on computer, much of it scanned and then the hard drive packed up and I lost the lot. I agree however with your reasoning about putting the DCAs on the ropes. We really have to play them at their own games and stand up to them. Another problem of course is that it can cause an awful lot of family strife for those of us that have partners. My wife for example cannot take the pressures of all of this and it gets her depressed whereby I tend to fight so I have to keep the details away from her.