Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The lawsuits allege the companies preyed upon "vulnerable" young men like the 18-year-old Uvalde gunman.View the full article
    • Hi, despite saying you would post it up we have not seen the WS or EVRis WS. Please can you post them up.
    • Hi, Sorry its taken me so long to get round to this, i've been pretty busy today. Anyway, just a couple of things based on your observations.   Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. I'd say theres a 1% chance they read it , but in any case it won't change what they write. They refer to the claim amount that you claimed in your claim form originally, which will likely be in the same as the defence. They use a simple standard copy and paste format for WX and I've never seen it include any amount other than on the claim form but this is immaterial because it makes no difference to whether evri be liable and if so to what value which is the matter in dispute. However, I have a thinking that EVRi staff are under lots of pressure, they seem to be working up to and beyond 7pm even on fridays, and this is quite unusual so they likely save time by just copying and pasting certain lines of their defence to form their WX.   Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. This is just one of their copy paste lines that they always use.   Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. They probably haven't read your WS but did you account for this in your claim form?   Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri.   This is correct but you have gone into this claim as trying to claim as a third party. I would say that you need to pick which fight you wan't to make. Either you pick the fight that you contracted directly with EVRi therefore you can apply the CRA OR you pick the fight that you are claiming as a third party contract to a contract between packlink and EVRi. Personally, I would go with the argument that you contracted directly with evri because the terms and conditions are pretty clear that the contract is formed with EVRi and so if the judge accepts this you are just applying your CR under CRA 2015, of which there has only been 2 judges I have seen who have failed to accept the argument of the CRA.   Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.    This is fine, but again I would say that you should focus on claiming under the contract you have with EVRi as you entered into a direct contract with them according to packlink, as this gives less opportunites for the judge to get things wrong, also I think this is a much better legal position because you can apply your CR to it, if you dealt with a third party claim you would likely need to rely on business contract rights.   As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. I wouldn't focus this as your argument. I did think about this earlier and I think the sole focus of your claim should be that you contracted with evri and any term within their T&Cs that limits their liability is a breach of CRA. If you try to argue that the payment to packlink is the sole reason for the contract coming in between EVRI and packlink then you are essentially going against yourself since on one hand you are (And should be) arguing that you contracted directly with EVRi, but on the other hand by arguing about funding the contract between packlink and evri you are then saying that the contract is between packlink and evri not you and evri.  I think you should focus your argument that the contract is between you and evri as the packlink T&C's say.   Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I doubt they have too, but I think their witness statement more than anything is an attempt to sort of confuse things. They reference various parts of the T&Cs within their WS and I've left some more general points on their WS below although I do think  point 3b as you have mentioned is very important because it says "Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line." which I would argue means that you contract directly with the agency. For points 9 and 10 focus on term 3c of the contract  points 15-18 are the same as points 18-21 of the defence if you look at it (as i said above its just a copy paste exercise) point 21 term 3c again point 23 is interesting - it says they are responsible for organising it but doesnt say anything about a contract  More generally for 24-29 it seems they are essentially saying you agreed to packlinks terms which means you can't have a contract with EVRI. This isnt true, you have simply agreed to the terms that expressly say your contract is formed with the ttransport agency (EVRi). They also reference that packlinks obligations are £25 but again this doesn't limit evris obligations, there is nothing that says that the transport agency isnt liable for more, it just says that packlinks limitation is set. for what its worth point 31 has no applicability because the contract hasn't been produced.   but overall I think its most important to focus on terms 3b and 3c of the contract and apply your rights as a consumer and not as a third party and use the third party as a backup   
    • Ms Vennells gave testimony over three days, watched by those affected by the Post Office scandal.View the full article
    • Punters are likely not getting the full amount of alcohol they are paying for, a new study suggests.View the full article
  • 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/Mortimer - old Lloyds Credit Card debt


Tangliss

Recommended Posts

I hope someone can help.

In 2005, I took out a credit card with Lloyds TSB.

Due to a change in financial income, I stopped paying Lloyds in 2014.

Stupidly, after getting numerous threatening letters by Cabot, I paid them a nominal £5 a month from 2017 until around May 2020 when I ceased payments.

 it’s not statute barred.

Fast forward, yesterday I received a letter from Cabot stating my account is being passed to their internal solicitors, Mortimer Clarke.

They will be writing to me in the next 7 days.

From what I have read online, they seem to like going down the CCJ route, which is what I want to avoid.

The amount owed is around £3,300 of which I can’t afford.

I’m struggling to make ends meet as it is.

I am preempting things and was wondering if I can been given advice on what I should do?

Should I wait and see if should I start asking for the relevant documents to be sent (such as the original credit agreement and default notice, etc)?

I am new to this so I apologise in advance for my naivety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely go with requesting a copy of the agreement.

A contract taken out 20 years ago you stand a good chance of them not being able to locate a copy.

Normally when they say pass to their solicitors is just a normal thermogram in getting you to respond and means nothing until an official notice of claim ( letter before action) sent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, I appreciate your response!

Just written a CCA request.

Will send that to Cabot tomorrow with the £1 postal order.

Should I send it recorded delivery?

Trying to work out the best address to send it to as there are two online addresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Cabot/Mortimer - old Lloyds Credit Card debt

no hold on that please

await and see if mortimer send a letter of claim FIRST.

dont go with a kneejerk reaction wetting yourself over a silly threat-o-gram,

all you do is invite pointless letter tennis showing you are scared of a powerless DCA or their dogs.

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

and have 

ZERO legal powers on ANY debt, no matter what it's type.

shame they scammed you into paying in 2017....:whistle:

retitled and moved to Lloyds forum.

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

hit letter of claim

follow post 2 if they DO

dx

 

  • Thanks 1

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

I have had a letter from Mortimer Clarke today, saying I have 35 days to contact them to avoid legal action.

They said if I don’t respond in that time they will go down the CCJ route.

What should I do now?

Should I sent the CCA and if so to them or Cabot? 

I tried to send a screenshot but it wont let me.

To add file

Thank you. I’ve attached the letter again.

 

 

2024-04-12 Mortimer Re Lloyds debt.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

please dont put up docx file they hold all your pers details in file/info/properties

now a pdf after proper redaction not pen squiggle.

next time read our upload guide

On 14/04/2024 at 12:19, dx100uk said:

await and see if mortimer send a letter of claim FIRST.

 

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

There is no heading, dx100uk kindly uploaded it for me above.

All it has it’s their name as the header, followed by “You can avoid legal action, call us today in XXXXX” Followed by who they are, how much I owe and I should act now to avoid a CCJ. They have given me (which is a lie because the letter is dated 12/4/2024) 35 days to respond to the letter otherwise they will go down the court route.

The letter doesn’t say it’s a letter before claim as far as I can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank yoU HB.

I will hold fire and see what dx100uk says. 

My husband (who knows nothing most of the time lol) thinks it looks like a generic letter they probably send to all clients

. It’s the first letter I’ve got from Mortimer Clarke too.

Good afternoon,

Im assuming the letter I received yesterday isn’t a letter of claim/ letter before action?

As I have never dealt with this I’m just double checking. 
Many thanks! 

Edited by Tangliss
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

But as I said, if it isn't headed Letter of Claim [Used to be Letter Before Action] then it isn't one.

 

^^

  • Thanks 1

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

Just had a look myself.

That's not a letter of claim but I imagine you'll get one soon.

When you do, come back here :)

  • Thanks 1

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

just type no need to keep hitting quote

there was no reply pack asking questions nor wanting Income & expenditure, so can't be a letter of claim.

there are no serious 'court sanctions' at all should a defendant/claimant ignore a letter of claim, total poppy cockle!!

very much the reverse, should a claimant NOT send a letter of claim before they raise a court claim, it's a very good browny point for a defendant !!

stop worrying....i wish certain members would stop posting unnecessary personal speculation on threads... doesnt help anyone.

if you DONT KNOW - DONT POST!!

its a 2005 card anyway pre the revisions, sao cant use a recon and i'd expect a CCA request to fail. 

this is cabot!! 99% of their debt portfolios are always unenforceable.

just the mugs keep being ignorant cash cows is the only way they recently stayed in business.

  • Thanks 1

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

If you do get a letter of Claim and or Pre Action Protocol pack

15. Where there has been non-compliance with a pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, the court may order that

(a) the parties are relieved of the obligation to comply or further comply with the pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction;

(b) the proceedings are stayed while particular steps are taken to comply with the pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction;

(c) sanctions are to be applied.

16. The court will consider the effect of any non-compliance when deciding whether to impose any sanctions which may include—

(a) an order that the party at fault pays the costs of the proceedings, or part of the costs of the other party or parties;

(b) an order that the party at fault pay those costs on an indemnity basis;

(c) if the party at fault is a claimant who has been awarded a sum of money, an order depriving that party of interest on that sum for a specified period, and/or awarding interest at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;

(d) if the party at fault is a defendant, and the claimant has been awarded a sum of money, an order awarding interest on that sum for a specified period at a higher rate, (not exceeding 10% above base rate), than the rate which would otherwise have been awarded.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

 

.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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

Posted (edited)

This afternoon, Mortimer Clarke have now sent me an email with this letter attached. I’m assuming it’s following on from the one above, as initially they gave me 35 days to respond, now it’s 26 days. Shall I ignore
 

Apologies regarding the quality and I hoped I blanked everything out accordingly.

Mortimer Clarke 2.pdf

Edited by Tangliss
Link to post
Share on other sites

cant keep saying you should block and bounce on IGNORE any email.....

dx

 

  • Thanks 1

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

Okay, so I’ll block their email so it doesn’t come through to my junk mail (this is the first one I’ve received from them). Will they still have to write to my home address in addition to emailing? 
 

Thanks dx100uk! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

email MUST ALWAYS be totally ignored.

writing only

  • Thanks 1

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...

What does a letter before action look like?

Received another letter from Mortimer Clarke but I’m assuming it’s a countdown letter from their previous two?

Will a letter before action ask for further details?

I am gathering these letters are just generic threats but want to double check.

The reason I ask is I know it doesn’t say “letter before action” but it does say

“you will need to act now or we will apply for a County Court Judgment”.

MC letter 3.pdf

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...