Cabot/Restons Claimform - old HBOS Credit Card debt

[bozalt]

DX100UK if only my life were so simple.

Sadly I no longer have a scanner, so I had to take photos and convert to PDF's online which were then too large to upload.

 

Never the less a neighbour has let me borrow there scanner and finally I have a PDF copy which is hopefully now attached.

 

I would be grateful for any advice regarding validity of these.

One point I note is that they are both dated after the alleged contract date of February 2005.

Restons_-_BOS_-_CABOT_-_CCA Personal Information Removed.pdf

Edited August 10, 2018 by dx100uk
Spacing

[bozalt]

I have been doing a fair bit of reading and have found threads here and on other forums which mention that reconstituted documents pre 2007 are not accepted as evidence, I have found others which contradict this.

 

I have also found PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW which indicates reconstituted documents may not be valid although this appears to hinge on the notice of assignment.

 

Could anyone point me in the right direction? ��

 

PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW

 

Stale debts sued for on the back of 2 ‘reconstituted’ MBNA credit card agreements (May 1999 and October 2000) were held irredeemably unenforceable under CCA 1974. The evidence of an honest witness was preferred to that of so called “reconstituted agreements”.

 

After 3 days of close forensic examination of, and legal argument about, evidence and documents from both PRA and MBNA stating that our client’s specific debt had been assigned, the court held that no assignment had been proved.

 

Efforts, over many months, in earlier cases to force PRA into disclosure of un-redacted deeds and deep and sustained forensic challenge to the provenance of documents needed to prove regulatory compliance, finally drew back the veil. The reality behind bulk debt purchasing was revealed.

 

This decision shows that just saying an agreement is enforceable and producing a “reconstituted” copy does not prove that it is enforceable. Just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned does not prove legal assignment.

 

Debt purchasers need to provide proof. If that means the pitifully few pence in the pound they pay for stale debts will increase because banks will now have to start keeping original evidence complying with regulatory consumer protection measures, it is hard to imagine many tears being shed, outside the City of London.

 

I also discovered a SARS CD sent by Cabot to me last year and the notice of assignment for this is not populated with any information and has the following 'Representation of letter sent XX December XX'

[dx100uk]

yes they'll need the signed agreement

 

where the DN and NOA?

 

so the NOA is a template of what it MIGHt look like..No Dice!!

[bozalt]

Hi Dx

 

No DN or original NOA supplied in the SAR, just a template letter with the note 'Representation of letter sent XX December XX'.

 

I havent asked for copies in my CPR request as they didnt mention it in the POC, I did include a general request for any other documents they intend to use in court to support their claim.

[dx100uk]

its what the claimant produces as exhibits to the court in their WS that are the only docs you really need to worry about if it ever gets to disclosure [WS] stage.

[bozalt]

Thank you DX.

 

I will research my defence and make sure I mention the NOA and DN if they dont supply them as part of the CPR request.

[dx100uk]

quite honestly id use our std no paperwork/holding defence

you don't tip them off 'as such' about what they've not produced

they know the score and both of those can be fatal to the success of their claim.

 

don't forget this was a speculative claim hoping for an undefended default rubberstamped when no humans checks anything.

some 750'000 are now issued each year less that 15% are ever defended..its a numbers game to them.

[bozalt]

Awesome thanks DX, could you possibly direct me to a thread that includes this?

[dx100uk]

already have post 22!!

 

the Docs return is too perfect [no scan marks no nothing ...its a pdf they've downloaded from somewhere and inserted your details in almost the same font as the rest of the text on its page..BOGROLL!!]

 

there is noway that is anything like what was sent to you at the time of takeout

 

all they've

[bozalt]

Thanks DX.

 

I will have a thorough read of the thread and post up my intended defence for review, I appreciate your help with all this.

[AndyOrch]

Keep to the standard defence Bozalt as advised...no need for war and peace with an initial defence....you expand and argue later in the process.

[bozalt]

Thanks and will do Andy, I will submit the standard defence around 7/9 as suggest by DX.

[bozalt]

Looking through my paperwork I also found a letter almost a year to the day before the claim advising they could not locate a credit agreement.

[AndyOrch]

Looking through my paperwork I also found a letter almost a year to the day before the claim advising they could not locate a credit agreement.

 

Come in handy to attach to your witness statement...if they wish to ride their luck and proceed.

[bozalt]

Well I have the response to my CPR request.

 

Charming, succinct and flawed?

Restons CPR response Page 1.pdf

Restons CPR response Page 2.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Its a template response.....and on every other thread that Restons are involved with.

[bozalt]

Thanks Andy, I assumed it was a standard threatagram with some slight tailoring!

[bozalt]

Hi DX and Andy

 

Am I ok to submit the standard defence detailed below when due?

 

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 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 23th March 2017 I made a legal request by way of a section 78 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has not yet produced the requested documents therefore I am currently unable to fully defend this claim.

 

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

[dx100uk]

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=+Cabot/Restons+Claimform+-+Card+debt&sa=Search+CAG

[dx100uk]

Ah thats strange

Autolink posted but not the post file

Normally the link gets dropped...

 

Theres a general bit that goes infront unnumbered

Youll find it in that link

[AndyOrch]

Its a little out of date that version Bozalt...and does not include PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol)

 

Search defences after 1st Oct 2017

[bozalt]

Ah thats strange

Autolink posted but not the post file

Normally the link gets dropped...

 

Theres a general bit that goes infront unnumbered

Youll find it in that link

 

Thank you DX, appreciated

[bozalt]

Thanks Andy, will have a look around.

[AndyOrch]

Example edit to suit your particulars.

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

2. The Claimant claims £xxxxxx is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully/ comply.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed 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 any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and

© 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;

 

6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.

 

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

 

8. On the alternative, as 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.

 

9. 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.

[bozalt]

Awesome thank you Andy