Cabot/Shoos SPC claim - old Lloyds TSB loan ** WON granted decree of absolvitor + costs**

[dx100uk]

i'll look in detail at this late in the week.

 

yes ofcourse you will respond.

 

but, in a nutshell, you don't play your hand no and you do not use anything more of what you know that they don't.

you use their provided documentation to pull their claim apart.

 

I think ive said this several times now.

 

you've already tipped them off in your 1st response to one error - that they don't know what they are litigating about nor what type of account.

they've now comeback and tried to answer that question, and made a very poor job of it.

 

 

all your job is at cmd is to further rubbish their amended claim using their evidence to prevent this going to a full hearing [where you will have to produce beforehand the evidence of what you are going to introduce,] [might not then even be all of it] ].

 

 

it is always better to keep things very very simple and never bring up things that do not apply to early at the stage you are at]

[fuzzel]

Ah sorry dx, I think we have crossed wires - a full hearing has already been fixed for 12th October

 

 

"I asked for dismissal but the sheriff fixed a proof for 4 weeks from today, allowed parties 2 weeks to lodge productions and allowed me 10 days to respond with my own amendments to my pleadings if, in response to what they are now saying.

Shall I upload in PDFicon format the amendment and the productions?."

 

That 4 weeks from today is actually incorrect - THE FULL HEARING IS Friday 12th October.

 

So I currently have until a week on wednesday to lodge my own amendment (and presumably add in at least some detail about the evidence I will be leading re dates given by lloyds and possibly time bar) and until 2 weeks before the proof to lodge any documents I want to rely on.

 

Sorry for giving the incorrect date for the proof in my earlier post.

 

So you'll see now why I'm anxious to make sure I have everything I need in my response but as you say I don't want to show my hand more than necessary.

Edited September 16, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[fuzzel]

Damn it, got myself in a muddle with these dates.

 

The relevant dates are as follows:-

 

24th September - last day for me to amend my response (following their amendments lodged at the last CMD).

 

26th September - last day for lodging evidence in advance of the proof.

 

12th October - day of the proof.

 

I've been on the phone with LLoyds again today trying to get them to send me a letter/email to confirm that my current account was indeed a current account.

 

2hours of being passed from pillar to post and they're escalating to complaints departments because no one was able to send me an email/letter to confirm, despite having the info in front of them, even though the current account was never sold to anyone and they are free to discuss it with me.

 

I know i don't necessarily need the info but I thought it would be helpful to have a piece of paper showing this was a current account and not a loan account.

 

What they won't do is send anything in writing to confirm that they sold the loan mentioned in the CCA doc in 2012 to cabot, and not to credit 1 in 2007 as claimed.

 

So It's my word against theirs in that regard (aswell as any evidence about credit 1 not existing then).

 

I'm unlikely to have anything in writing in time for the proof now, even if the complaints team write back to me "regarding your current account X" for example, as it will take weeks.

 

I was wondering is it worth taking screen shots of my calls with LLoyds (totalling over 5 hours now) which show the number and "lloyds bank insurance" as the number, aswell as the call durations, since although I can't show anything on paper to confirm the account/date inaccuracies in the claim, it's better than nothing and will show I at least had lengthy conversations with LLoyds which will support my own evidence about the conversations?

 

I could then lodge print outs of those screenshots of the calls.

If nothing else it shows that I discussed SOMETHING with LLoyds at length several times and therefore supports my own verbal evidence that they told me all the info I have re dates etc.

 

It might go a long way to assist the sheriff in realising how much of a run around cabot have given me with this claim, and how much leg work I have put in to try and work out what on earth they are claiming for.

 

I know what you are saying dx, about only having to tear apart their own documents to win the case, I'm just trying to be as prepared as I can be is all and I'm sure I'll have to amend my response to at least give the claimant notice of the time bar defence, aswell as possibly some further details (hopefully vague) of my defence,

 

I know you said you'll look at it later in the week and I really appreciate it.

 

Thanks

 

@fuzzel Today 14:16

 

I just had a call back from LLoyds from the lady who was digging into trying to send me a letter confirming that the account they are chasing was a current account,

 

what she confirmed was that I had 2 loans and an overdraft all of which were sold to Cabot in Sep 2012 (and later sold to apex who are also part of cabot) amounting to a total of £22440.64.

 

I didn't want to ask anything further because she said Cabot had been in touch and they had sent them some documents (presumably the items the CCA they have lodged as evidence).

 

So, reading between the lines,

I think what cabot have/got (that they don't realise) is 2 loans and an overdraft totalling £22440.64.

They are suing for a loan that they think has an outstanding balance of £3735.95,

the sum sued for,

but in actual fact was the amount left on the overdraft only.

 

That would make sense as the statements to account show a similar total and payments made to the current account number, not one of the loans.

 

What's not clear is whether the 2 loans plus an overdraft were consolidated into one fresh loan agreement later with lloyds (LLoyds say they sold a loan to cabot that was a consolidated loan for loans and overdraft)

 

but if that were the case, you'd think LLoyds would have sent them a CCA younger than the 2001 one that was lodged and which is only only in the amount of £10k, not the £22k+ total.

 

so perhaps cabot bought all 3 from LLoyds and have misinterpreted what they have to conclude that there is £3735.95 left of an originally much larger loan.

 

All this aside, they still have no chain of assignation from credit 1 to themselves in respect of either a loan or overdraft. They have no proof of an overdraft agreement even if they knew that's what they were suing for. They also have, no proof of payments to any loans that would keep alive the timebar issue on those loan accs, all of which (either separately or consolidated) were sold in sep 2012. Even if sold in 2007 which we know to be impossible, they have shown no payments to loan accs in that time, only statements showing payments to "original account number xxxxxxx" which is the current account.

 

Sorry for all my posts today, I know you probably have dozens people that you are helping at any given time, but hopefully that sheds some more light on what I am/might be dealing with come the proof.

 

Thanks.

 

 

@dx100uk Today 14:23

 

prove the account number in their poc relates to a od not a loan

and prove credit 1 didn't exist in 2007

 

nothing here is secret

post to thread and stop fretting.

 

you are seriously making this overly complicated

 

Will my own verbal evidence that the account they are suing for was a current account (and loans sold in 2012 not 2007) be enough, given that I can't illicit anything in writing from Lloyds to confirm it? Otherwise all I have is a written note of what they said to me and recordings that I can't submit as evidence.

 

How should I go about proving that credit 1 were not around in 2007 as I'll need to lodge that I expect?

 

Found it...

 

Confirms they were not around in 2007 to have bought/have been assigned the debt from LLoyds.

[dx100uk]

ive added the 2 PM's redacted to post your above post

where did you find the info on Prime please

so others can relate to it.

[fuzzel]

Subject to advice from you guys, the amendment I was thinking of making to my response would be to add in the following;_

 

D1

- I am not aware of having or having had any contract with the claimant under section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

- It is denied that the claimant came to own the alleged debt as claimed.

-The claimant's claim is timebarred.

 

D2.

- the claimant's case is time-barred in terms of The Prescriptions and Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1973.

 

HI dx,

 

I found the info on this wesbite, at a cost of £14 odd. https://portal.kyckr.com/companySearch.aspx

 

I'll do nothing further until you say so.

 

Also, according to this, in respect of the statements to account they have lodged, even if I started making payments to them in 2014, the debt would have been timebarred by then and although they collected payments from me thereafter (whatever debt they say it relates to) those payments would not have restarted the clock

 

https://www.thebalance.com/what-can-restart-the-debt-statute-of-limitations-960889

[dx100uk]

Good work

[fuzzel]

Now I'm a bit confused as other sites are saying that payments made by me would restart the clock and not clear about whether that is the case when the 5 years is already up. What's your understanding of it dx? Ie can the clock be restarted even after more than 5 years has passed and the claim is now timebarred, or can it only restart if there is still part of the 5 years to run?

[dx100uk]

you cannot unbar a debt

once barred always barred

and in Scotland [5yrs] its totally extinguished .. dead parrot gone

 

unlike E&W [6yrs] whereby all SB status does is removes the availability to enforce a court judgement so they don't bother with court

they can ask for payment

you equally can ask them to go away.

[fuzzel]

I think this says that since the claim is in scotland it's no longer recoverable once timebarred, assuming this applies

 

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/7/15.html

 

 

This paragraph - G01/04/2014

RP

In Scotland, a statute barred debt ceases to exist and is no longer recoverable if:

 

(1) a relevant claim on behalf of the lender or owner has not been made during the relevant limitation period; and

 

(2) the debt has not been acknowledged by, or on behalf of, the customer during the relevant limitation period.

 

[Note: annex B3 of DCG]

 

(They haven't produced anything showing that I did either those exceptions in the 5 years that followed the last payment, or at the latest the date of default in 2007, or before their 2014 statements of account.)

 

Thanks dx, just posted this then saw your reply above.

 

So it looks like no matter what loan/overdraft they are referring to or amend their pleading to refer to, it will be time barred based on their own timelines and statements of acount.

 

If I make the amendments I proposed in #134,

will I have enough detail in my pleadings to allow me to give evidence on the timeline as explained to me by LLoyds?

 

Ie can I get away with just saying

"It is denied that the claimant came to own the alleged debt as claimed" and then go on to give the selling date I got from Lloyds, or will the claimant be able to argue that I haven't given fair notice of that in my response?

 

I don't want them going and speaking to lloyds and getting something on paper that contradicts it, so I'd rather not mention specifics in the pleadings if I can.

 

Equally I don't want to be told I can't give the evidence of it due to not having details in my response.

[dx100uk]

again hellishly over thinking things.

 

you are averring the debt is statute barred

 

its for the claimant to prove its not, not for you to prove in is.

 

you could add a simple line " with ref to the account number XXXXX used in the claimants' original pleadings dated XXX and in their recent 9D? form to amend the xxx, dated XXXXX..

 

having checked my own records and from enquiries made to the original credit

there has been no payment since about xxxx

 

2 The respondent contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Section 6

If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract,

in excess of 5 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

under Scottish laws the debt is now extinguished

.

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

.

[fuzzel]

Perfect, thanks dx. Yes i need to keep remembering that it's for them to prove their case, not me to prove mine

[dx100uk]

that wont be the final draft so no rushing off filing it yet...let them sweat.

[fuzzel]

that wont be the final draft so no rushing off filing it yet...let them sweat.

 

Ok perfect thanks

[dx100uk]

this one is interersting..

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?231809-Cabot-Mortimer-claimform-old-EGG-card-debt/page2

 

from:

 

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=apex+prime&sa=Search+CAG

 

there appears to be a link between apex and prime...

[fuzzel]

Not read through yet dx, but does that matter if prime credit weren't around in 2007 to have bought from LLoyds as they claim, and if as according to LLoyds, Apex were assigned it from cabot in 2013, after cabot bought it from lloyds in 2012?

 

The purchase in 2013 by apex probably doens't make much difference if they were part of cabot at the time (other than Cabot possibly having used the wrong company of theirs to sue with). Sorry if I'm missing something.

 

Presumably if I have that printout lodged in court showing that Prime Credit 1 sarl did not exist until 2011, it falls on them to prove otherwise (especially when Lloyds don't even mention Prime credit, or having sold to anyone until sep 2012), not to mention they still have to prove the chain of assignation from LLoyds to prime, to Cabot, which they haven't done yet. They only have a letter to me saying "we bought this debt" which says nothing about who they bought it from.

 

Read through it now. Similar non-sensical stuff about Prime Credit 1 sarl.

[dx100uk]

Poss if prime purchased apex..so thus they could say it was purchased in 2007

 

If the claim ac number is a bank account sort/number then makes no odds

[fuzzel]

But surely then they would have to say that Apex bought it in 2007 and prime subsequently bought Apex, plus show that to be the case. Otherwise it would be just as bad as saying the loan agreement was with TSB just because they merged with lloyds later on?

 

According to 3 separate people at LLoyds, asked independently, they owned the debt until sep 2012 when cabot bought it, then apex bought it from them in 2013. So the best they could say if Prime credit owned apex at that point, is that prime bought it in 2013, especially since prime only came into existence in 2011?

 

Sorry I'm being daft and not getting what you're saying.

Not withstanding all that, there is no paperwork showing a purchase by prime OR apex, other than their association with cabot being mentioned on the back of cabot's letter saying "we bought it".

 

Given all that, am I right in saying that, even if there weren't so many factual inaccuracies (and impossibilities in the case of prime credit one buying in 2007), based on their own claim details, before even getting to my evidence have so far failed to:-

 

1) Provide a valid CCA for the loan account they are suing for

 

2) Provide a default letter for the account in question

 

3) Prove a chain of assignation leading to them, or even proof that it was assigned to them from prime credit as they claim (just the letter to me saying "we've bought it" which surely isn't enough.

 

4) Prove that their case is not time-barred, even if their own sequence of events was to be believed (let alone mine) because the statements to account for the account they are suing for begin in 2014, 7 years after they say it defaulted in 2007 (as confirmed by lloyds, despite their being no default notice lodged) and therefore at least 7 years after the last payment, unless they lodge something to the contrary between now and the proof. (the default having occurred in 2007, the presumption is surely that it is now timebarred unless they prove otherwise ?)

 

Am I not right in thinking that if they fail on just any one of those points then they fail to prove they have a legal right to recover for the account? (or can they still prove it with no CCA for the account and no default letter?) that the court can't grant them decree?

I probably need to prepare my amendments this weekend so I just want to be sure that I'm not barking up the wrong tree.

 

Thanks for your ongoing help and support btw.

Edited September 20, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[dx100uk]

they can only go by what they prove in their disclosures

 

its a bank account - you know that you've used that website

there will never be a CCA signed agreement for that.

 

yes notice of assignment between the chain of companies using the same account/ref number they use today.

then saying the twaddle about assignation regarding Scottish claims is just that twaddle.

 

default notice

 

i'll drill thru all this later if I can find the time.

 

bottom line though it must noe be statute barred even if Lloyds merged the lot before sale into the wrong number.

 

they don't have a habit of doing that..its called a managed loan..only HSBC did that as far as I've ever seen.

merge everything..give in a number..sell it on to a fleecers.

 

its a speculative claim they never expected someone to defend..

[dx100uk]

resit please

 

can I have the original text of box D4 from the original claimform

if this contain pers info then I wish to see it and therefore send via PM please

[dx100uk]

work in progress

 

with regard to the amended plea by the claimant:

.

1. the respondent has never entered into any agreement with the claimant whether this be under or outside of the consumer credit act regulations under account number XXXX quoted on the Form 9D.

.

2.as detailed by the respondent at the previous CMD of [DATE], the account number quoted relates to a bank account [sort code XXX account number xxx] which i admit i did have with lloyds bank.

.

this account was closed on 25th November 2007, it did not have an overdraft facility.

.

3.Having checked with Lloyds numerous times since the original court claim dated xxxx, they repeatedly state there was no outstanding balance.

.

3.The account xxxx has had zero transactions since 25/11/2007, the claimant has failed to show any payments relating to nor has produced any paperwork relating to the specific account number under litigation.

 

4. it is averred by the respondent any claim against account number XXXX is now statute barred pursuant to the provisions of The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Section 6

.

If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the respondent is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 5 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. under Scottish laws the debt is now extinguished

.

4. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

[dx100uk]

as they are free I would be sending 3 sar s

 

one to Lloyds

one to Apex

one to Prime

 

undoubtedly they will raise a new claim under the correct account number.

you need to prepare for that.

[dx100uk]

regarding the above

these payments that were made

would they have been from a Lloyds bank account [the payments to prime/apex]

[dx100uk]

reqork two.

 

ith regard to the amended plea by the claimant:

.

1.as detailed by the respondent at the CMD of DATE, the account number quoted appears to relate to a bank account [sort code xx-xx-xx account number xxxxxxxx] which i admit i did have with Lloyds bank.

 

this account was defaulted on 30th Aug 2007 though the claimant has failed to date to produce this said default notice nor any written evidence from the original creditor , Lloyds, that this was ever sent.

 

The account was closed by Lloyds on 25th November 2007.

this is further supported by the Direct Debit Mandate Produced by the Claimant themselves as Part of Their C1 List of documents.

 

This shows the bank account number they are using in this litigate being the funding account for a separately numbered loan which the claimant has further under produced a signed consumer credit agreement for. What relevance this has to the claimants claim for a sun outstanding on a bank account is somewhat puzzling.

.

There is no evidence produced relating to any outstanding balance at that time of the bank account closure, though the claimant under their revised D4 references a figure of some £22,440.46 as at the alleged assignation to Prime Credit on 27th November 2007, but has failed to produce any notice of assignment to prove this fact nor the balance quoted.

 

For want of trying to clarify this +£22k figure, it is to be noted that this far exceeds the total of any loan, even though this is not what is being litigated over.

 

However, the loan was £306.26 X 60mts = £18,135.60, and signed on 8th October 2001.

Even if we assume a mistaken number that the claimant has used twice now in their court forms, there would have been 57 payments of £17,456.82 made till the date of the Lloyds default, so only some £678.78 short, if the default/assignment were for the loan, not +£22k the claimant states.

 

3.Having checked with Lloyds numerous times since the original court claim dated xxxx, they state there was no outstanding balance on the bank account quoted as the ltigated account number.

.

3.The claimant has produced no evidence of any payments by myself till their statements in evidenced in documents C5 and C6.

 

thus a period of 5yrs had accrued before

1. the closing of the account/assignation to prime credit and

2. the first payment to the claimant cabot.

 

I aver that the account was already statute barred pursuant to the provisions of The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Section 6 when i mistakenly was duped under duress to make payments to the claimant.

.

If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the respondent is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 5 years had elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. under Scottish laws the debt is now extinguished

.

4. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

[fuzzel]

reqork two.

 

ith regard to the amended plea by the claimant:

.

1.as detailed by the respondent at the CMD of DATE, the account number quoted appears to relate to a bank account [sort code xx-xx-xx account number xxxxxxxx] which i admit i did have with Lloyds bank.

 

this account was defaulted on 30th Aug 2007 though the claimant has failed to date to produce this said default notice nor any written evidence from the original creditor , Lloyds, that this was ever sent.

 

The account was closed by Lloyds on 25th November 2007.

this is further supported by the Direct Debit Mandate Produced by the Claimant themselves as Part of Their C1 List of documents.

 

This shows the bank account number they are using in this litigation being the funding account for a separately numbered loan which the claimant has further under produced a signed consumer credit agreement for. What relevance this has to the claimants claim for a sum outstanding on a current account is somewhat puzzling.

.

There is no evidence produced relating to any outstanding balance at that time of the bank account closure, though the claimant under their revised D4 references a figure of some £22,440.46 as at the alleged assignation to Prime Credit on 27th November 2007, but has failed to produce any notice of assignment to prove this fact nor the balance quoted.

 

For want of trying to clarify this +£22k figure, it is to be noted that this far exceeds the total of any loan, even though this is not what is being litigated over. - I was thinking it's enough for us to show the loan amount being nothing like the amount they say was assigned.

However, the loan was £306.26 X 60mts = £18,135.60, and signed on 8th October 2001.

Even if we assume a mistaken number that the claimant has used twice now in their court forms, there would have been 57 payments of £17,456.82 made till the date of the Lloyds default, so only some £678.78 short, if the default/assignment were for the loan, not +£22k the claimant states. - I'm reluctant to say too much on this as it might highlight to cabot there are additional sums they could be suing for

 

3.Having checked with Lloyds numerous times since the original court claim dated xxxx, they state there was no outstanding balance on the bank account quoted as the litigated account number. They weren't actually able to confirm whtehr and what balance was on teh current account at the end, only that an overdraft an dloans were consolidated.

.

3.The claimant has produced no evidence of any payments by myself between the date of deafult and the dates contained withintheir statements in documents C5 and C6.

 

thus a period of 5yrs had accrued before

1. the closing of the account and alleged assignation to prime credit and

2. the first payment to the claimant cabot.

 

I aver that at the time these payments were made the account was already statute barred pursuant to the provisions of The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Section 6 when i mistakenly was duped under duress to make payments to the claimant.

.

If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the respondent is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 5 years had elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. under Scottish laws the debt is now extinguished

.

4. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

Thanks for doing all that dx, I will try and comment on your amendments in red.

 

You'll see Im' suggesting taking out some detail, purely because the sheriff, when I asked fo rtime to amend in response to their amendment, said to be careful what I wished for, which to me was alluding to the fact that I'm already on solid ground so don't try and fix what's broken sort of thing. Maybe I misinterpreted taht, but if as you say they try and raise additional actions after this case, I don't want to make things easier for them by breaking down any numbers, or giving suggestions as to where their figure of22k+ came from since at the moment they seem to be working under the assumpion that the difference between that and the 3.7k they are suing for was paid off. I hop ethat makes sense to you.

 

So I was thinking that if they can only win or fail on the account they are chasing for, the current account, on which they should fail for the reason you discuss above re no CCA (because their won't be for a current account), timebar, no asssignation chain etc.

 

Can I ask, what did you mean by the assignation chain in Scotland twaddle? I'm on the wrong track with that? The first sheriff seemed to think there needs to be a chain of assignation. Or were you meaning twaddle on their part in their explanation re buying from prime credit etc?

 

Re your query about the payments being made from a lloyds account, thos epaid to the loan while it was running were made from the current account they are suing for as you point out, but after that was closed, I have no idea what if any payments were made. The ones they mention in the statements of account from 2014-2017 woudl not have come from a LLoyds account. They would have come from a current account i have with another bank and made simply to try and keep a DCA off my back sort of thing, before I realised how toothless they are.

 

If they do try and raise new claims for the other loans, all of which must have defaulted and were closed in 2007, they will have still have the same time bar issue to overcome, assuming they don't have record of payments I made to them or anyone else towards actual loan accounts in the period 2007 to 2014 when they made contact with me. I ftehy have been recording any payments as being for "orignial account" being my current account, as they have done here, any payments made that they haven't mentioned/discovered yet might also have the wrong account on them.

 

I hope you don't think it rude of me trying to cut out some of those details - if you think they need to go in then i will absolutely put them in. I'm just trying down the amount of info I throw their way so that it's enough to let me lead evidence sufficent to win the current case, but no so much as to help them help working out what it is they have bought from LLoyds, not that it's even clear to us.

 

I'll PM you a copy of their original section D4

 

Do I need to make any averments about the info I got from lloyds, ie the dates of selling to cabot in sep 2012 and it then being resold by them to apex in 2013? Or can I just submit by own verbal evidence on that as being what they told me over the phone?

 

Original section D4

[dx100uk]

what im doing is getting it all down to cover all bases

then well go thru it and cut out what is obv unnecessary

 

yes it might well be we simply go with the SB statement with a bit of fluff around it

thus not going down the line of introducing why it cant be the loan etc etc

but that needs carefully deliberation using the info they have to rely upon

 

as it stands they ref the loan, so at present I think its usage and explanation is needed at present.

 

dx