Jump to content


Cabot/Restons claimform - old funding corporation car finance debt [car faulty-VS ]


geoff78
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2420 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

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i've noticed that this paragraph is used quite often in defence,

 

but after looking up the law of property act, i have to admit i dont understand it.

 

could someone explain it to me please ( sorry to be thick if it is something simple )

 

" 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."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can remove that entirely geoff as its not really applicable to the majority of defences.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

how does this sound?

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance defendant(s) under a contract between the defendant(s) and the funding corporation dated on or about Sep 20 2007 and assigned to the claimant on Nov 13 2015

 

What is the value of the claim? default balance £10200

post refri cr (? not sure what this is ) nil

+ court fees and costs 554.50 = £10754.50

 

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 CPR 31.14 and a Section 79 request.

On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14. This was received by the claimants' representative on 30 January 2017. A second request was received by the claimants representative on 02 February 2017, and, although these were acknowledged, to date I have yet to receive a satisfactory response.

Furthermore I have a made a request to the claimant, Cabot Financial Limited, under section 78 of CCA1974 for a copy of this agreement. This request was received by the claimant on 30 January 2017. However to date I have not received a response regarding this. I understand that until their compliance the claimant is unable to request any relief or enforce any agreement.

 

 

2. 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. 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 at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks again DX, sorry so late replying - its been a long day at work.

 

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance defendant(s) under a contract between the defendant(s) and the funding corporation dated on or about Sep 20 2007 and assigned to the claimant on Nov 13 2015

 

What is the value of the claim? default balance £10200

post refri cr (? not sure what this is ) nil

+ court fees and costs 554.50 = £10754.50

here's my 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 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 CPR 31.14 and a Section 79 request.

 

3. I do not recall receiving any Notice of Assignment from either assignor or assignee pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has declined to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice;

© show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

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

 

5. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 79 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have declined to comply with my section 79 request and remain in default and with regards to my CPR 31.14 request. Therefore the claimant, in their non compliance to my requests, have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.

 

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

 

7. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's looks ok to me

but let andy confirm.

 

just to give you the heads up if you haven't already been reading ACF/TFC threads here

its quite probable your agreement was secured by a bill of sale

this is why the POC is so very vague.

they are trying to hide lots of important info.

 

the repo that happened on the vehicle was most probably illegal

that voids the whole agreement

and put you in a position to probably reclaim everything you ever paid if its true

 

this thread is worthy of a read

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?472038-ACF-The-Funding-Corp-illegal-repo-now-cabot-Chasing-HP-shortfall

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with dx

 

Very doubtful this is hp

As your OP £6000 added

 

Sounds like BOS linked to credit agreement

 

Once your defence is sorted and lodged

make sure you get that SAR running

 

Just in case Cabot do get the docs

lots to look into here

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few tweaks Geoff to what you have already drafted in post#32......are you sure thats the full particulars ...verbatim ?

 

If they do wish to proceed its imperative that you get this allocated to Small Claims Track...but we can cross that bridge as and when.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if she has a claim form in her name

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i spent yesterday going through the loft and found the vehicle order form from the dealer, a gap insurance policy, and a 3 month warranty document.

 

from looking at figures on different forms i have from tfc

it looks like everything was added to the car purchase price as there is a zero where it says about insurances purchased.

 

it also says on the dealer paperwork that ppi was wanted,

( although i'm pretty sure they only did it in my exwifes' name so not sure what use that would have been as i was the higher wage earner )

but again no mention of that in the tfc paperwork.

 

not sure if any of this is indicative of anything.

really need that SAR to try and piece things together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

anything about BOS

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only reference to a bos that i can find is in one letter dated 2011.

i had fallen into arrears at this time and i received:

 

"Notice of termination and seizure

our records indicate that you have not satisfied the notice of default dated ... as such the agreement is terminated and you are now liable for the total balance due under the agreement.

 

you have not paid your rentals when due under the tems of the bill of sale. unless we obtain a satisfactory response from you within 5 days of this letter, under clauses 6 and 7 of the bill of sale, our next action will be to effect the recovery of the vehicle."

 

 

this is the only mention of a bill of sale.

i think the payment had crossed in the post and so they continued taking monthly payments and i kept the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

which confirms from post 33 then.

 

 

slam dunk..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought, if it is a bos involved does that make any difference to the fact that I made a cca request under s79. I've just checked with the post office and although they were received by Cabot, neither postal orders have been cashed nor returned to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought, if it is a bos involved does that make any difference to the fact that I made a cca request under s79. I've just checked with the post office and although they were received by Cabot, neither postal orders have been cashed nor returned to me.

No difference really although would have been a77

if BOS

 

Cabot don't know any more than we do yet

 

Far less probably 😀

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right there Oldrouge.

I've received a letter from Cabot returning my postal order and telling me that the account is assigned to their solicitors for collection and so cannot action my request. They then ask me to redirect my c c a request to their solicitors who will liaise with me on this matter.

I haven't read of this on other threads, does this sound familiar to anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCA section 77 request goes to the claimant...not the Solicitor.

 

Similar confusion on the following Cabot thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?474786-Cabot-claimform-Court-Claim-Old-Welcome-Finance-Secured-Loan/page2

 

Not sure whats going on with Cabot claims.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy, yep that letter on the thread is almost identical to hat which I received.

On the claim form from the court it definitely says that Cabot are the claimants and that it was assigned to Cabot from tfc.

It only lists their solicitors as acting for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a cabot new tactic it seems

learning from their mates rectums on how to frustrate and unsettle claimants..

usually means they know something is wrong with their court claim in many cases we see rectum intimidation on?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, it appears to be working Dx. I certainly feel unsettled at having this.

 

Do you think I should cc a their solicitors or request it again from Cabot,

 

 

also pointing out that they are listed as the claimant and that it was assigned to them therefore it is their duty to comply with the request?

 

Also their solicitor has already declined to give me what I asked for in my cpr request

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...