Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • reading the order is quite difficult for me. this is a letter (names and addresses taken out) that i sent in which is what i assumed i needed too.   court.pdf
    • Thanks for the message jk2054   I have just been drafting what I want to say and I think its best to focus purely on the supremacy of contract. The reason being that I dont want the judge to start focusing on other parts of my witness statement when surely just the supremacy of contract section alone should be enough to get this dismissed.    The crux of my defense revolves around the principle of Supremacy of Contract. When I purchased my flat in December 2016, the contract explicitly included ownership of parking spot 112, as delineated in the lease documentation provided in Exhibit 1. This documentation unequivocally establishes my right to use and occupy this parking space. Furthermore, the subsequent exhibits, particularly Exhibit 3, clearly depict the marked boundaries of parking spot 112, corroborating my ownership as stated in the lease agreement. Additionally, the official register of title, presented in Exhibit 4, reinforces this ownership claim. Moreover, I draw the court's attention to relevant legal precedents, such as Pace v Mr N and Link Parking v Ms P, which demonstrate that parking companies cannot override a tenant's right to park on designated property. These cases serve as persuasive authorities supporting my argument regarding the Supremacy of Contract in residential parking disputes. It is my contention that the absence of any contractual obligation to display a permit for parking spot 112 absolves me of any liability in this matter. The claimant's failure to acknowledge my ownership rights in their witness statement further underscores the weakness of their case.
    • I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant .... So what if he declared himself as the driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver. The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number .... The parking was paid for. I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court. But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies. Pollux, is that a fish like Cod? 😁
    • and more .. As thames water pushes to further rip off captive customers, not get fined for it, and allow more dividends .. for little more than 'aspirations' to do better More detail comes out of the literally and figuratively sh** companies apparently shunting money out of the regulated business to profit/bonus/dividend generating unregulated side companies   "Accounts filed at Companies House show : (Kennets) accounts, filed more than 12 months after the end of Kennet’s financial year, showed that the company made a £1.15m pre-tax profit for the year to 31 March 2023, up from £374,000 a year earlier. Revenues rose to £1.6m in 2023 – up from £1m in "Kennet Properties paid out a £14.5m dividend in the year to 31 March 2023" "Kennet ?takes on? land no longer needed by Britain’s biggest water company before developing it and selling it on, typically for housing or commercial premises. It also received income for the use of sewer networks by third parties for fibre-optic cabling."   Thames Water could raise bills to £627 a year to help fix leaks | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Embattled water supplier promises to invest up to £3bn more over the next five years     Thames Water-linked firm paid £14m in dividends despite concerns over group | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Kennet Properties sells off Thames Water land, whose owner, Kemble Water, has warned it would not be able to pay a £190m loan  
    • I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign. He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price. There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery. To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cabot/shoosmith Summary Cause - Friends Cap1 Card debt **DISMISSED AGREED STATUTE BARRED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2268 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

DX, or anyone,

can you help with a wee quick question (or 2) please...?

 

Thought I'd just use this old thread of mine,

rather start a new thread - hope that is OK?

 

My friend has been served with a Summary Cause (Scotland)..

. I have sent a CCA request, on her behalf, and await the outcome.

 

It is pre 2007, and by the looks of her credit file, the default date on her account was just a week or two OVER 5 years ago, from the date on the court paperwork

- meaning, I think, it is already statute barred.

 

She assures me she's not had any contact with them, nor made any payment in that time.

So, it may be a clear cut case, based on the statute barred status of the account

 

Am I correct in assuming that the statute barred period starts on the date of default of the debt?

 

Also, the papers were simply posted thru her door,

but state they were delivered to her in the presence of a signed witness.

 

 

In other words, they didn't send by recorded delivery,

and nor did they hand them to her in person.

Does this not mean that they were served incorrectly?

 

It is shoosmiths, acting for cabot, for a capital one debt.

I think they are on a hiding to nothing,

 

 

but I'm interested to know if, rather than going to the bother of defending,

that I can simply write to them, on her behalf, stating they've both served the papers incorrectly,

and that the debt is statute barred, and threaten to go to court to defend and seek all possible expenses...

 

 

I've won 2 Ordinary cause actions roughly based on this method...

 

Any quick advice please guys and gals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no relationship whatsoever between defaulted date and SB date!!

 

they are totally separate.

 

SB date is last payment or signed letter say + 1 mth to be certain.

 

so the debt is EXTINQUISHED as its scotland

no court claim to even answer.

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

Cheers DX, awesome as usual..

. So, the default usually occurs a couple of months after you stop paying them,

and they lose patience chasing you? ;-)

 

How about the serving of the papers?

 

 

Is it simply suffice to say you witnessed it,

then pop it thru someone's door?

Surely that is someone's word agains yours?

 

At least if you sign for a recorded delivery it carries some weight,

as does being presented them in person?

Link to post
Share on other sites

serving papers in Scotland is simply 2 sheriffs doing it

one to do it

one to sign as witness.

nothing wrong there.

 

again you are confusing default with SB

they are not linked.

 

as I said

SB date is last payment or signed letter saying its mine + 1 mth to be certain.

 

defaults are immaterial to court /SB dates

 

if a debt is SB'd its SB'd no matter what they did do

didn't do

send or not send.

 

it is absolute

and in Scotland

wipes the debt out hence use of the word extinguished

in Scottish law

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...

DX - hope you pick this - didn't wanna start a new thread, and have read other threads where you commented on this subject, but just wanted a quick answer from you please...?

 

OK, so Cabot Financial (UK) Limited have instructed Shoosmiths to issue a summary cause, for some £4k, to my friend. It is for a credit card debt, and she thinks the debt is statute barred - but she hasn't kept any previous correspondence, and as she can be a bit flakey(!) I'm wanting some extra ammo for her defence of the action...

 

It is a pre 2007 agreement. I have cca-ed Shoosmiths, and they are saying this might take some time - pffft - it is now 3 weeks and nothing. I have sent a SAR to Capital one (original lender) and had nothing yet, but it's only been 2 weeks - only once we have this will I know that the debt is truly statute barred.

 

Anyhoo - Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd - their licence is still showing as lapsed on the FCS website, and I've read conflicting info as to whether this is a defence, or whether they can simply have someone else in their group collect the debt - but what if the summary cause is listed in the name of cabot financial (uk) limited - surely that means it is them collecting the debt, and not another part of their group? As such, is this a reliable defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyhoo - Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd - their licence is still showing as lapsed on the FCS website, and I've read conflicting info as to whether this is a defence, or whether they can simply have someone else in their group collect the debt - but what if the summary cause is listed in the name of cabot financial (uk) limited - surely that means it is them collecting the debt, and not another part of their group? As such, is this a reliable defence?

 

That would not be a viable defence anyway...whether it was true or not....which its not....you respond to their particulars...

 

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

ring cap1 and ask

 

 

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 months later...

DX - hope you pick this up (again!)

 

OK, so this recent summary cause I'm helping a friend with. To recap - £4k debt, shoosmiths chasing for cabot, on a capital one debt they have purchased. Friend checked their credit file, and it defaulted JUST over 5 years prior to the summary cause being served, which means she's had no contact with capiltal one (original lender) for 2-3 months prior to this. As such, I'm certain that it is definitely statute barred (Scotland).

 

Anyhoo, we went to court in August, on the original calling date, sat for an hour, before a clerk pulled us aside and said that shoosmiths had asked to sist the case (until this week), but had not contacted my friend to give her any notice of this.

 

Capital one were sent a SAR on 7/7/16 - and have still NOT complied with this. Nor have Shoosmiths been able to turn up the original agreement, in any form.

 

Shoosmiths wrote to her a few weeks after the CCA request, waffling some crap about confirming that 'this matter will be placed on hold until we are able to provide this documentation'.

Two weeks later, Cabot, themselves, wrote to her saying they currently did not have the CCA on file, but stated that they requested it from the original lender. Given that capital one, to date, still haven't replied to a SAR, nearly 3 months down the line, I'm guessing this isn't forthcoming.

 

However, Cabot also wrote this in their letter: 'I acknowledge the 12 day time limit to provide this information before the account becomes unenforceable, however, as we have to request the details from the original lender I anticipate that we will be able to provide this within 40 days. In the unlikely event we are unable to obtain this information within those time limits, we will write to you again'.

 

NOTE: the 40 DAYS...? time limit for a SAR?

 

SO, questions are these:

they haven't written to say they have the paperwork (I'm guessing their not actually obliged to, but surely, capital one should have been obliged to respond to the SAR, had the paperwork been found?)

 

 

SO, should we email Shoosmiths, or Cabot, to ask if they will definitely be showing in court this time around (Thursday this week), as taking time off work to attend, for them to simply not turn up as they've requested a further sist, is not acceptable...?

 

 

And should we point out to them that the agreement, even if they turn up the paperwork, is statute barred, and they are not entitled to take my friend to court for an unenforceable debt?

 

 

Is there even a template letter for something like this??

Wouldn't the court take a dim view of them doing this, knowing they had no paperwork to proceed with and knowing it was statute barred? (And is statute barred the correct terminology?)

 

Looking forward to your valuable assistance yet again...

 

(ps: I've just been awarded £10K for mis-sold Egg PPI)

Link to post
Share on other sites

you were advise to ring cap1 and confirm SB status did you?

 

you should have simply put in the statute barred defence

which you should do this time

will kill the claim dead

 

no need to bother with CCA/CPR or anything irrelevant...

 

said all this months ago before the first hearing....

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

DX, sorry - u said 'ring cap 1 and ask' - I assumed u meant about the cabot licence

- must have read it as 'ring cabot and ask' - didn't know you were referring to the statute barred status.

 

We were waiting on the SAR to check what info they had for my friend,

but as this still hasn't come, a few months down the line, I'm thinking that Capital one don't have anything at all?

 

Should I email Shoosmiths for her, and point out the statute barred status now...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no never entertain directly

 

go confirm SB status.... ring cap1 and ask date of last payment/usage by HER

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 months later...

and?

 

 

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

  • 1 year later...

would be nice if you took the trouble to update cag upon your thread...we helped you ...now help us...

 

many members helped you get help

 

cag relies upon resolution to threads so others like you can find and read about how to solve their like issues...

 

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

Humble apologies DX, et al, I was utterly convinced that I had updated on this at the time... I had to read back the thread to see I hadn't - very remiss of me, sorry... I think I was confusing it with the update/conclusion on my own case...

 

So, regarding my friend's Cap1/Cabot thingy:

the account was clearly statute barred, and were told this, but they still pushed for the court date. As such, I attended with my friend, and when the case was called, and I told the Sheriff that it was statute barred, the local solicitor they were using to represent them acknowledged this right away - as though she clearly knew already, but was just pushing forward regardless - and they dropped it without a problem, with the Sheriff shaking her head...

 

Many thanks for all your assistance throughout all of this...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks StressBall

 

thread title updated to reflect the outcome.

 

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done

should have asked for your costs..

esp as you'd told them it was SB'd and they still made you attend.

 

sheriff would have liked that...:lol:

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Cabot/shoosmith Summary Cause - Friends Cap1 Card debt **DISMISSED AGREED STATUTE BARRED**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...