Cabot/Mortimer Clerke Claimform - Old LV Credit Card 'debt'

[Charbydis]

Name of the Claimant ? Cabot Financial(UK) Ltd

Date of issue – . 2/3/2016

What is the claim for –

 

 

1. By an agreement between Liverpool Victoria and the Defendent on or around 15/6/2000("the agreement")

Liverpool Victoria agreed to issue the defendant with a credit card.

The defendant failed to make the minimum payments due and the agreement was terminated.

The agreement was therefore assigned to the claimant.

2. The claimant therefore claims £8100

 

What is the value of the claim? £8100

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Credit card

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? before

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor

or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. debt purchaser

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I may have some time ago

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I may have

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

Why did you cease payments? September 2013

What was the date of your last payment? 1/9/2013 approx

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? no

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan?

Yes, I entered into a DMP with payplan in 2006/2007 but came out of it in September 2013

as most of my debts had been sold and none of the DCAs could provide the required paperwork

 

What you need to do now.

 

Answer the questions above

 

If you have not already done so – send a CCA Requesticon to the claimant for a copy of your agreement - done

(except for Overdraft/ Mobile/Telephone accounts)

 

Send a CPR31.14 request to the solicitor named on the claim form for copies of documents mentioned/implied within the claim form. There are two different versions - one for Loans/Credit cards the other for Current accounts - done

[theoldrouge]

have you acknowledged on mcol and ticked defend all?

[Charbydis]

Yes acknow;edgement of service sent and defending entirely

[Charbydis]

Yesterday I received a letter from CABOT, redirected from my old address, dated 27/1/16 saying this account was being selected for legal action. Now checking my records I sent a CCA request to them some years ago and then a second letter pointing out that they still hadn't complied with my request. Should I point this out to them or put it in my defence.

[dx100uk]

neither at this stage

 

 

simply file the no paperwork/holding defence by the correct date

the rest can be expanded upon later in your WS

should they progress it that far.

 

 

dx

[AndyOrch]

Yesterday I received a letter from CABOT, redirected from my old address, dated 27/1/16 saying this account was being selected for legal action. Now checking my records I sent a CCA request to them some years ago and then a second letter pointing out that they still hadn't complied with my request. Should I point this out to them or put it in my defence.

 

Have you sent a further request since the claim was issued?

[Charbydis]

Yes because the claim form didn't include any account number so I couldn't check my records

[Charbydis]

Yesterday I received a letter from mortimer clerk saying they had asked arrow for the paperwork in my CPR request and would be putting any legal action on hold until the paper work arrived.

 

 

While this seems good I guess I should still file my defence anyway as I don't know if they have told the court this.

[dx100uk]

yep you file regardless

[Charbydis]

Particulars of Claim

 

1. By an agreement between Liverpool Victoria and the Defendant on or around 15/6/2000("the agreement") Liverpool Victoria agreed to issue the defendant with a credit card.*The defendant failed to make the minimum payments due and the agreement was terminated.*The agreement was therefore assigned to the claimant.

 

 

2. The claimant therefore claims £8100

 

 

#####Defence#####

 

1. 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.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is accepted insofar as that I have in the past held a contractual relationship with Liverpool Victoria. I do not recall the precise details of the account and have requested verification from the claimant to which they have yet to comply.It is denied the claimant has provided the me with notice of assignment in accordance with s136 law and property act 1925 and therefore have yet to prove they are entitled to bring this claim.

 

3. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Mortimer Clerke Solicitors and Cabot Financial(UK) Ltd. by way of a CPR 31.14 and a section 78 request. To date, no response has been received from Mortimer Clerke other than to acknowledge receipt of the request and that they have submitted it to C. I have not had any response from Cabot Financial(UK) Ltd.

 

5. Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

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

 

© show how the agreement was legally terminated to allow the claimant relief.

 

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

6. As per*Civil Procedure*Rule 16.5, it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

7. 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.

 

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

[AndyOrch]

[Charbydis]

Thanks. now submitted.