Claim form Cabot- old cat 'debt'***Claim Discontinued***

[OldDebt_Weary]

Thanks Brigadier. Why do they claim to have 40 days in which to do this?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thanks Brigadier. Why do they claim to have 40 days in which to do this?

Cabot have previously quoted some "industry guidance) I have not found any such document.

The Time Scale 12 + 2 Working Days is a Statutory Requirement.

Might be worth making a report to the FCA with a copy of the letter.

[dx100uk]

cause they do.

 

whatever you do

 

do not miss filing your defence.

 

dx

[OldDebt_Weary]

Thank you both. Whereabouts in the CCA 1974 does the 12 + 2 days get stated, so I might quote this back to Cabot? The 40 days is for an SAR, nothing to do with CCA, am I right? Should I point this out to Cabot?

 

 

DX, I am still not sure what the defence wording should be. Can you point me to some template or similar case on this forum where I can get this right?

 

 

This letter from Cabot suggests to me that they clearly have many such requests and thus may also have a well- rehearsed claim that they use if, as is probably more likely than not, they have nothing to back their claim up with. I find this worrying.

[dx100uk]

by midnight sun 7th sept

 

you have ages.

 

look at recent threads here in the financial legal forum

click the name up the very top

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Y

Thank you both. Whereabouts in the CCA 1974 does the 12 + 2 days get stated, so I might quote this back to Cabot? The 40 days is for an SAR, nothing to do with CCA, am I right? Should I point this out to Cabot?

 

 

DX, I am still not sure what the defence wording should be. Can you point me to some template or similar case on this forum where I can get this right?

 

 

This letter from Cabot suggests to me that they clearly have many such requests and thus may also have a well- rehearsed claim that they use if, as is probably more likely than not, they have nothing to back their claim up with. I find this worrying.

 

 

 

 

You don't need to quote anything to Cabot the know the stat time scale.

[OldDebt_Weary]

Hello again.

 

 

I have today received an interesting letter from Cabot. I will quote the relevant bit:

 

 

"....The 12 day timescale is the period of time before the account becomes unenforceable. So after 12 days the debt is unenforceable until we provide you with the relevant documents.

 

 

It should be noticed however, that while your credit agreement is unenforceable, you are still obliged to repay the outstanding debt. The unenforceable status means we are not permitted to obtain a judgement or decree against you in Court" (emphasis mine)

 

 

Have they just shot themselves in the foot here or is this some clever ruse to still take it to court? Should I write requesting their withdrawal of the Court action or what should I do?

 

 

Thanks.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hello again.

 

 

I have today received an interesting letter from Cabot. I will quote the relevant bit:

 

 

"....The 12 day timescale is the period of time before the account becomes unenforceable. So after 12 days the debt is unenforceable until we provide you with the relevant documents.

 

 

It should be noticed however, that while your credit agreement is unenforceable, you are still obliged to repay the outstanding debt. The unenforceable status means we are not permitted to obtain a judgement or decree against you in Court" (emphasis mine)

 

 

Have they just shot themselves in the foot here or is this some clever ruse to still take it to court? Should I write requesting their withdrawal of the Court action or what should I do?

 

 

Thanks.

 

 

What Cabot has said is correct, until a compliant agreement is found the debt cannot be enforced via the courts.

 

 

However the debt still exists and can be pursued and reported to the CRAs.

 

 

The claim will be stayed and can remain so until an agreement that is compliant and enforceable is found.

[Old Cogger]

They are referring to a judges direction from High court case and what they say is correct, unable to enforce but can ask for payment others will comment also!

[OldDebt_Weary]

Thanks for that. So should I still mount a defence or should I write and ask them to withdraw the claim?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thanks for that. So should I still mount a defence or should I write and ask them to withdraw the claim?

This is from the CCA 1974, they cannot enforce via the court, but the debt remains payable and reportable to the court.

Cabot will most likely apply for the case to be stayed.

 

 

Wait and see what Cabot Does Next.

[OldDebt_Weary]

Thanks Brigadier. If I am to defend this, I have until midnight on 7th Sept to do so, therefore I don't have much time to wait for them to do something. Any suggestions, could I email them and ask what they plan to do?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thanks Brigadier. If I am to defend this, I have until midnight on 7th Sept to do so, therefore I don't have much time to wait for them to do something. Any suggestions, could I email them and ask what they plan to do?

Enter your defence as planned then you're covered.

[OldDebt_Weary]

Many thanks. I shall figure out a suitable defence wording and then run it past you if I may.

[OldDebt_Weary]

Hello again,

 

 

I have put together a defence based on other posts I have seen here. Could anyone comment please to see if it makes sense? Many thanks.

 

Particulars of Claim

 

 

1.The Claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant under a contract between the Defendant and Simply Be dated on or about 21/10/2007.

 

2. And assigned to the Claimant on 13/01/2012 in the sum of £339.86

 

£339.86 + costs = £424.86

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by a Section 78 request.

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

4. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

5. On the 13th August 2014 I made a legal request by way of a section 78 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to comply and therefore is in default of this request and as such unable to request any relief until compliance.

 

6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Andyorch
Particulars added for easy reference

[AndyOrch]

Particulars added for easy reference.

 

Andy

[OldDebt_Weary]

Thank you very much Andy.

[AndyOrch]

Look again at their points 1&2 do you think your response covers it adequately?....and you have not responded to their point 2 so that needs addressing.

 

Andy

[OldDebt_Weary]

Thanks Andy, sorry I think I know what to put in response to that. I appreciate your help in getting this right.

[AndyOrch]

Post your amended final draft

[OldDebt_Weary]

Here is the main text plus an item 2 which I hope covers the fact that no notice of debt assignment has been received by me:

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by a Section 78 request.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied and the Claimant is put to the strictest of proof on the same. The Defendant contends that no notice pursuant to s.136 & 196 has been served upon him by the Claimant as alleged or at all.

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

4. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

5. On the 13th August 2014 I made a legal request by way of a section 78 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to comply and therefore is in default of this request and as such unable to request any relief until compliance.

 

6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Andyorch
Tweaked

[AndyOrch]

Tweaked it slightly

[AndyOrch]

But if the DJ asks do you owe any money to SB do you think your point 1 is sufficient?

[OldDebt_Weary]

But if the DJ asks do you owe any money to SB do you think your point 1 is sufficient?

 

 

 

I'm not sure what I should say here.

[AndyOrch]

1.The Claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant under a contract between the Defendant and Simply Be dated on or about 21/10/2007.

 

Hows about

 

Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have in the past held accounts with Simply B however I am unaware of any outstanding balances as alleged and it is therefore denied until such time the claimant can clarify and comply with my request under section 78 of CCA1974.