Jump to content


Cabot Financial /Mortimer Clarke claim form - Sainsbury's personal loan


Boro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ps please stop making reported posts!!

you dont need too!

 

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

Sorry DX & thanks for your reply, here is what I have now

 

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. 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. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had in the past a contractual relationship with Sainsbury's Bank.


 

3. Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted.The claimant has failed to state any agreement/account reference number within its particulars therefore I am unable to admit or deny the alleged debt claimed.


 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or Sainsbury's bank.


 

5. On receipt of this claim on the 20/08/2021 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and CCA1974 Section 77 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. Mortimer Clarke is yet to respond in relation to the CPR 31.14 request. To date, 20/09/2021, no documentation has been received.The claimant remains in default of my section 77 request.


 

It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:


 

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


 

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974


 

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


 

7. 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.


 

8. 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

You need to answer their default notice para

Put your 1 back to what it was inc no agreement no. Etc 

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

1.By an agreement between Sainsburys & the Defendant on or around 21/06/2016 ('the agreement') Sainsburys agreed to loan the Defendant monies, The defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due.

 

2.The agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice.

 

3.The agreement was assigned to the Claimant.

 

The Claimant therefore claims

1. 8713 2.

Costs

 

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. 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. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had in the past a contractual relationship with Sainsbury's Bank. 
The claimant has failed to state any agreement/account reference number within its particulars therefore I am unable to admit or deny the alleged debt claimed. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information. 

 

3. paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by Sainsbury Bank and received by the Defendant.

 

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or Sainsbury's bank.


5. On receipt of this claim on the 20/08/2021 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and CCA1974 Section 77 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. Mortimer Clarke is yet to respond in relation to the CPR 31.14 request. To date, 20/09/2021, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 77 request.


It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:


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

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974

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

 

7. 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.

 

8. 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.

 

try that.

 

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

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...