Cabot/Mortimer claimform - old Aqua Newday Card Debt

[Gilbert2014]

Lol OK, really appreciate the help, thank you. 

[Gilbert2014]

Hi,

 

I received a letter from Cabot saying that the do not have the files but will contact me again in 12 days.  I suppose this is a tactic to stop me defending the CCJ?  
 

Can I put the defence in now, or should I wait until closer the deadline?

 

thanks

[AndyOrch]

Wait.....post your proposed defence here first.

[Gilbert2014]

Hi all,

 

today I received the attached document.  It says they do not have original documentation so is therefore unenforceable, but they will continue to call and send letters.  
 

do I still send the defence in please?  Or should I take their word for it and leave it....?

[AndyOrch]

You still submit a defence and we can include the above.

[Gilbert2014]

Okay, thanks 

[AndyOrch]

Have you had a look at typical defences ...yours is due next Tues 10th

[Gilbert2014]

Yes I’ve got something together that I was going to upload over the weekend and submit on Monday.  

[Gilbert2014]

1.By an agreement between Newday Ltd Re Aqua and the defendant on or around 27/12/2012 NewDay Ltd re-Aqua 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 signed to the claimant.

 

The claimant therefore claims 330.50 plus costs.

 

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. 

 

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 01 October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration, pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.  

 

*The Defendant contends that the particulars of the 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.

 

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.  The Defendant therefore sought clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request, which the Claimant has failed to comply with.

 

The Claimant alleges the agreement was terminated following the service of default notice to the Defendant. The Defendant does not have any record of this. 

 

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 does not have any record of this.  

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.  The Claimant has confirmed they do not have these details as requested and therefore cannot provide. 

 

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. 

 

Hi is this Ok.  I put it on this morning but for some reason it didn’t upload properly, so sorry short notice!

[dx100uk]

ive inserted their POC that you should ref by their paragraph numbers for each of your responses

where the star is that should be at the very start

 

it should be followed by the PAPLOC response which you appear to have repeated twice.

bar that good effort.

[Gilbert2014]

Yes sorry I sometimes have problems where I upload text but it doesn’t show.  So I upload it again and then it appears twice.  

[dx100uk]

you don'y upload text 

simply drop and drag or copy and paste it.

 

pop it up again when corrected now please

[Gilbert2014]

1.         By an agreement between Newday Ltd Re Aqua and the defendant on or around 27/12/2012 NewDay Ltd re-Aqua 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 signed to the Claimant.

 

5.          The Claimant therefore claims £330.50 plus costs.

 

 

1.                  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.   The Defendant contends that the particulars of the 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.

2.                   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 01 October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration, pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 

3.                   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.  The Defendant therefore sought clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request, which the Claimant has failed to comply with.

4.                   The Claimant alleges the agreement was terminated following the service of default notice to the Defendant. The Defendant does not have any record of this.  

5.                   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 does not have any record of this.  

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.  The Claimant has confirmed they do not have these details as requested and therefore cannot provide. 

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. 

 

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. 

Is this ok?

[AndyOrch]

Requires attention.....will get back to you shortly

[Gilbert2014]

My deadline is today so will have to submit and hope for the best

[AndyOrch]

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of the 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.

 

2.  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 01 October 2017.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration, pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 

 

3. Paragraph 1 is noted although the Defendant is unaware of what alleged agreement the Claimant refers to, having failed to adequately particularise its claim, the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  The Defendant therefore sought clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78.

 

4.  Paragraph 2&3 are noted.The Claimant alleges the agreement was breached and terminated following the service of default notice to the Defendant. Without knowledge of what the  alleged agreement refers to I am unable to admit or deny.

 

5.  Paragraph  4. The claimant refers to the alleged debt as being " signed" I can only assume the claimant means " Assigned".They do not plead a date or what pursuant Legislation they wish to rely upon. Therefore 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.  

  
6.  On receipt of this claim I requested by way of CPR 31.14 and a section 78  dated the 10th October 2020 requests 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.  The Claimant has confirmed they do not have the relevant documents at this stage and are therefore unable to enforce the agreement in court.

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

 

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

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

c) Show and evidence the service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974,

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

 

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

 

9. 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. 

 

10. 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. 

[Gilbert2014]

Thank you, it’s much appreciated.  Defence now complete.