Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bank the cheque.  No doubt it will bounce - but you never know. When it bounces - that is when you are meant to access their website link and enter your personal details - but of course - DON'T.
    • Wayne Ting, chief executive of e-scooter firm Lime, says there's room for improvement. View the full article
    • If you are absolutely certain* that you were parked OK, write a letter of complaint to the Headteacher and copy in the Chair of the school governors.   If you or the car were identifiable in any way from the photo (eg visible registration number, driver's face etc) I would very politely write that you resent the untrue suggestion that you had parked/had stopped/were waiting in a way that contravened any traffic regulations, and that you are sure that the school will understand that you would like an apology and a correction to be printed in the next newsletter.  (You can also clearly state that you were identifiable from the photo because other parents have mentioned it to you).   See if that works.   You don't want to go to court for defamation as you'll need access to about £10k in fees before you get out of bed.  You just want an apology and a correction.  If what you've told us is accurate, I don't see any reasonable school failing to say sorry.     *My wife is a former school governor and my experience listening to her is that very very few parents actually understand the meaning of the no stopping/no waiting signs and road markings outside schools.  Don't complain unless you are sure you weren't stopped where you shouldn't have been.
    • And they haven't offered a speed awareness course either?  (Have you done one in the last three years or is this in Scotland?)   And is one of the notices for 34 in a 30?  As Man in the Middle says, that ought to be below the level at which they take action.   (And sorry - I don't want to appear preachy - but...  there don't have to be any warnings or signs or lines on the road to advise you of the presence of speed cameras.  If you get away with an exceptional hardship argument you will need to stick to speed limits in future - whether you know there are cameras there or not.  NB Don't know if this applies to you, but most 30 mph limits are restricted roads with a system of streetlighting and don't even need speed limit signs - you are assumed to know this from the Highway Code).
    • It's up to you if you want to pay £300 you don't owe plus whatever Unicorn Food Tax with no basis in law whatsoever that they will have made up in the Letter Before Claim.   We'd prefer you didn't.   But you have received a LBC so it's make your mind up time.   So please    - post up photos of the signage in the dark that you'll have taken two months ago (post 14)    - post up details of planning permission for their signs you'll have found out after you got onto the council, again two months ago (again post 14)    - also let us know if you agree with Brassnecked's excellent letter or if you'd like to tweak bits depending on what you've found out    - upload the LBC.  Some of them are appallingly drafted and invariably contain Unicorn Food Tax which is all useful extra ammo    - also, where are you living now (post 35) and are you comfortable with legal communications arriving at your parents'?   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, you will see 275 times these cheats have been seen off with their tails between their legs (and all had the same "well known legal companies" (ho! ho!) on hand).  In reality 275 times is a massive underestimate, in all 275 cases there was a "moment of victory" IYSWIM where the PPC were thrashed in court or discontinued a claim or were called off by a supermarket chain, etc., etc.  There will have been at least that number again where they were told to Foxtrot Oscar and then crawled back under their stone.  They are eminently beatable but logically when you're in legal dispute you have to put some graft in to beat the other party.
  • Our picks

Cabot/Mortimer claimform - New Day Fluid Mastercard


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I've received a Claim Form from Northampton County Court.

 

Claimant: Cabot Financial Limited

 

Solicitors: Mortimer Clarke Solicitors Ltd

 

Particulars of Claim:

By an agreement between New Day re Fluid Mastercard & the Defendant on or around 01/03/2019 ("the agreement") New Day re Fluid Mastercard agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due.

The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the Claimant. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 1314.87 2. Costs

 

Amount claimed: £1314.87

Court Fee: 70.00

Legal Representatives Costs: £80.00

Total Amount: £1464.87

 

I recall the card but couldn't continue payments due to being out of work. I struggled considerably and offered them payments over the phone to which they said they couldn't take such small amounts of money, I remember it as it was quite a heated conversation.

 

I've one of these before but quite a long time back and I am not up to date with things so reading up on things. I've completed the AoS and defended.

 

Can someone guide me a little which will refresh my memory. 

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and Welcome to the forum

 

I have moved your topic to the Financial Legal Issues Forum ..please continue to post here to your topic.

 

If you would read the following and then complete and post  back here for further advice.

 

 

 

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Cabot/Mortimer claimform - New Day Fluid Mastercard

 

Name of the Claimant ? Cabot Financial UK Ltd

 

Date of issue – 02/10/2020

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for –

 

1.By an agreement between New Day re Fluid Mastercard & the Defendant on or around 01/03/2019 ("the agreement") New Day re Fluid Mastercard agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card.

 

2.The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due.

 

3.The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice.

 

4.The Agreement was assigned to the Claimant.

 

THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS

1. 1314.87

2. Costs

 

What is the total value of the claim? £1464.87

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Absolutely no documentation received. Some random calls but no paperwork.
 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No
 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? NA

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account?
Credit Card

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After 04/2007

 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, checked moments ago.

 

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. Assigned as per PoC
 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Honestly can't remember. Quite possibly but not sure.

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Possibly, can't recall.

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No, this is the first I've heard except random calls

 

Why did you cease payments? Came out of work and couldn't afford to keep up their payments. Made offers which they rejected as not enough. This was all by phone so I don't think I can prove this.

 

What was the date of your last payment? Not sure. Probably around June/July just before being made redundant.

 

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 communicated with the creditor by phone but my offers were rejected and I couldn't cope with the stress anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
[if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time]
.
 register as an individual
 note the long gateway number given
 then log in
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked
 you DO NOT file a defence at this time

[you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ]
 click thru to the end
 confirm and exit MCOL.
..
 get a CCA Request running to the claimant
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/
 leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed
..
 get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]
..

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/
..
type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

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

This is my defence so far, nicked from various other defences. Someone give it a once over for me pls.

 

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 

 

  1. The Defendant notes the opening sentence referring to an agreement with New Day. The Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with New Day. The Defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the Claimant refers, having failed to adequately particularise its claim, the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  
  2. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. This is denied. 
  3. The Claimant alleges the agreement was terminated following the service of default notice to the Defendant. This is denied.
  4. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment from assignor or assignee pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925 s136.  

    The Defendant denies owing any monies to the Claimant or interest pursuant to the County Courts Act 1984. 

     
    The Defendant is unaware of what account or contract the Claimant refers to, nor having received any default notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

The defendant denies owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: 

  1. Show how the Defendant has entered into a legal signed agreement with the Claimant; and 
  2. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed; and 
  3. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 
  4. To provide an original assignment in writing signed by the assignor at time of alleged assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. 
  5. On receipt of this claim the Defendant requested by way of CPR31.14 and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for within the 14 day period by way of signed for letter. To date they have failed to comply with the section 78 request and remain in default with regards to the CPR31.14 request. 

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

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 1925 and Section 82a of the Consumer Credit Agreement Act 1974. 

The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the 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.  

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first point missing......

 

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

 

As for the rest you have the main body but you have tweaked with too much by including their particulars in your responses.

 

I would stick to the tried and tested.

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

between now and then use our search and read ...claimform card

 

the more you read the stronger we become.

 

 

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

Hopefully this is a little better. I know I have time but I now work for an airline and I'm away somewhere hot for 7 days. Just trying to get as much done in the time I have.

 

DEFENCE

 

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 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 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with New Day in which I can’t recall the precise details of any agreement and have therefore sought clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request which the claimant has failed (will amend this if they do) to comply with.

 

4. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due.

 

5. Paragraph 3 is denied. I have not been served with a Termination Notice or Default Notice pursuant to sec 87 (1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

6. Paragraph 4 is denied. The defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s136 Law of Property Act and s82 a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged.

 

It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

c) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to s87.1 CCA 1974.

d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

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

 

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

Not sure about your point 4......

 

4. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due.

 

Why did you cease payments? Came out of work and couldn't afford to keep up their payments. Made offers which they rejected as not enough. This was all by phone so I don't think I can prove this.

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Just received this from MCS.

 

"We have received your request for documents under the Civil Procedure Rule 31.14.

 

We have sent your request to our client and will back to you when we have heard back from them. Our client may not have all the documents to hand, they may need to ask the original creditor for some of the documents so it may take some time for us to come back to you.

 

We trust this is of assistance to you."

 

As I recall it's the usual waffle from these cretins, are they not supposed to be in possession of documents before filing with MCOL?. I'll re-look at the defence as well. Thanks Andy.

Edited by BattleShipII
Link to post
Share on other sites

std speculative roboclaim BS

750'000 issued every year hoping for a default rubberstamped judgement where no human checks anything

 

dx

 

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

Hi, this is the amended and hopefully final defence. Would someone just give it a once over for me before it's ready for filing on MCOL. I'm doubting myself but as I recall I don't need to post to the Sols or Claimant, just submit online?

 

Particulars of claim for reference only

 

1.By an agreement between New Day re Fluid Mastercard & the Defendant on or around 01/03/2019 ("the agreement") New Day re Fluid Mastercard agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card.

 

2.The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due.

 

3.The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice.

 

4.The Agreement was assigned to the Claimant.

 

THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS

1. 1314.87

2. Costs

 

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 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 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with New Day in which I can’t recall the precise details of any agreement and have therefore sought clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request via signed for delivery which the claimant has failed to comply with.

 

4. Paragraphs 2 & 3 are noted .Although I do not recall receiving a Default Notice /Termination Notice  pursuant to sec 87 (1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

5. Paragraph 4 is denied. The defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s136 Law of Property Act and s82 a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged.

 

It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

c) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to s87.1 CCA 1974.

d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

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

 

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

Slight edit on your 4..check and then submit on line MCOL.

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

well poss

await the courts ack of your defence filing...

 

it will tell you...

 

they might simply let it get autostayed...

dx

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
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

Letter received from MCS today - thoughts on whether to check with Court. I've read some posts on here whereby these cretins have done this before and won because of the defendant not carrying on as normal without formal documentation from the court. Shall I continue as normal / phone the court for advice?

 

"We confirm we have received your defence.

 

We have referred the content of your defence to our client for their comments, we will come back to you as soon as we have our clients instructions.

 

This may take some time, especially if our client needs to go back to the original creditor for information and/or documentation to respond to your defence. In the meantime, the matter has been placed on hold and no further action will be taken."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Means nothing......see if they wish to proceed now...if they do you will get notice from the court by way of a Proposed Notice of Allocation and a Directions Questionnaire (N180) to complete and submit....if they do not proceed the claim becomes stayed.

 

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...