Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with 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 MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. 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 claimant 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; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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. 9. 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.
  • 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

help please with Cabot


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6059 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

I have been reading all of this with a great deal of interest. I am hoping to get some sound information and assitance if at all possible.

 

A little while ago sadly before I knew about CAG I was taken to Court by Cabot aka Kings Hill they got a CCJ and did not even ask for payments but went straight for a Charging Order I put in a defence but the judge gave them the CO.

 

Can I CCA these chaps? Is it worth it if I have defended the debt in Court? If there is no CCA then surely they cannot enforce can they?

 

The debt is made up of overdraft and credit card combined.

 

I do pay them monthly. Should I leave it or should I go for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do pay them monthly. Should I leave it or should I go for them?

 

Um, have you actually read any of the Cabot thread? If not, please do so and you'll have your answer :D

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You

I am pretty confident about the CCA so will send this off probably with a SAR also.

The part I cannot get to grips with is the fact that they have a CO and I have defended - do you feel I have admitted to the debt making me liable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You

I am pretty confident about the CCA so will send this off probably with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) also.

The part I cannot get to grips with is the fact that they have a CO and I have defended - do you feel I have admitted to the debt making me liable?

 

You can always go for a 'set aside' - stating the fact that you was not aware of your rights etc etc etc ... Once of course you have CCA'd and SAR'd those lovely people at Cabot.

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

So...

 

1 CCA them

2 SAR them

if they do not produce CCA gain a set aside on the grounds of no CCA and I did not know my rights at the time and new evidence has come to light that is that they have no CCA (if that is the case of course :) )

I suppose a second attck could be that if they do have the CCA which is dated about 1995/6 there are tons of charges on the account so I could get those looked at I figure

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. If your account has been active within the past six years (which I suspect it must have if it has recently been sold off). then you can claim penalty charges. mis-sold ppi (if applicable) and if there is no proper agreement (and I don't mean the application form which they will fob you off with) in some circumstances it is possible to demand all of the interest ever paid back. Some are even claiming successfully beyond six years on this forum (you will have to search I don't have link).

Follow pmfc's instructions re SAR and CCA. However I would just check with the court as I think you can ask for disclosure as this is a live case under part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Cabot and its coat of many companies will have to answer your questions if Judge rules and it may be a quicker way than the CCA and SAR but do that as well to show the court you have been taking action. Good luck and keep posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for that I was under the assumption that the 6 year rule covered the time of the transaction - this opens up a whole can of worms for me then - I think they purchased this account towards the end of 2006 so I am gunning for them now. CCA and SAR off in the next day. The 'live' Court case is also of real interest - however to be safe if they do not have a CCA from 1996 ish then this is the best way forward to release the CO and the CCJ as they have enforced a debt they cannot legally show that they own. Am I on the right lines here? :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has two sides to it. Go after the OC for penalties etc. For that you will need all your statements. You will probably have to take them to court to get them to refund but do not worry it is uite a well trodden path on here now. Do not let them tell you it has been sold etc. They must refund this to you and not to Cabot.

Then go for Cabot. No CCA apply for a set aside on these grounds. See who else will drop by with more experience than me on the latter. But defo start getting your penalties back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK

 

I have just pulled out the paperwork for this case...

 

The CCJ and final charging order were obtained in Feb 2007 and May 2007 by Kings Hill Ltd -

 

Any ideas whether the CCJ and CO are legitimate because they did not use their correct company names

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK

 

A slight correction from the above but it should not matter I think?

 

Kings Hill (No1) Ltd obtained a CCJ on me in March 2006

They had the case tranferred locally in Jan 2007

In May 2007 they obtained a Final Charging Order in the Name of Kings Hill (No1) Ltd

 

I am reading original Court Documents...:o

 

Since then I have made payments to them but have now sent a CCA request.

 

I sincerely doubt they can conjure up a CCA from one of the big banks - the debts relate to 1995-1999 ish

 

The 6 year rule would be of interest aswell, I must admit I am confused here..the purchases relate to that period above but if the bank sold the debt then does the clock start ticking again and I can claim the charges...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't read too much into getting it set aside on a minor technicality. Kings Hill now being Cabot UK, and all that. The CCA is the key. If there is no CCA, then there was never any enforcable debt in the first place. But it wouldn't hurt to mention the fact that the wrong company obtained the charging order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seahorse,

 

Any thoughts on the 6 year rule...the transactions go back to 95-99 ish is this still a possible claim others suggest that because the debt was sold then the clock starts again, I cannot get a steer on this point thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of it being sold I don't think, it's about when you last made payment or effectively ' acknowledged the debt'?. Have you, in the last 6 yrs either paid anything or responded to correspondence or answered telephone calls about this debt. If you have then the clock starts all over again. If not it's statute barred and tell them to go to hell. Unless of course there was a ccj in place on the debt and I think that changes things. Someone else might be able to confirm that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made payments since CCJ and FCO....

 

Prior to that I had possibly spoken to other DCA's...think I made a few payments 3-4 years ago....so there could be a debate there

 

The more I think about this and through the help of CAG I will be gobsmacked if they turn up with a 10-12 year old CCA - fingers crossed on this (I am rarely that lucky)..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're probably right, but don't forget you are dealing with Cabot. If they don't come up with the CCA, you can get the CCJ removed and if you have the bottle can go for the others before them and ask for your money back you paid them. Now wouldn't that be sweet ? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're probably right, but don't forget you are dealing with Cabot. If they don't come up with the CCA, you can get the CCJ removed and if you have the bottle can go for the others before them and ask for your money back you paid them. Now wouldn't that be sweet ? :D

 

 

Hi Josh - am reading this thread with interest as I too have a CO on my house (not with Cabot!) and wasn't sure about going down the CCA/SAR route so will be following your thread to see how you get on:)

 

Good luck

 

Bo

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK

 

A slight correction from the above but it should not matter I think?

 

Kings Hill (No1) Ltd obtained a CCJ on me in March 2006

They had the case tranferred locally in Jan 2007

In May 2007 they obtained a Final Charging Order in the Name of Kings Hill (No1) Ltd

 

 

Now, the irony of this little fact, is your charging order was granted unlawfully. IIRC, Kings Hill No 1 changed its name on January 15th to Cabot Financial (Europe) ltd. Seahorse can confirm exactly whom.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, the irony of this little fact, is your charging order was granted unlawfully. IIRC, Kings Hill No 1 changed its name on January 15th to Cabot Financial (Europe) ltd. Seahorse can confirm exactly whom.

 

Kingshill (No.1) Ltd actually changed its name on 15th January 2007 to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd which was sitting dormant within their 'group' previously.not (Europe) Ltd Tomterm8. They just swapped names. Same company number just swapped names. Now Kingshill No1 Ltd sits dormant. (Europe)Ltd only act as 'administrators'.

 

This is why we get annoyed, (UK) Ltd BUY the debts & register the default, but never ever contact the alleged debtor. They pass the data about accounts they bought from the bank to another company cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd who then do all the chasing, harassing and corresponding with us all. But,they can't do this under the Data Protection Act without your permission - its as if they sent it to someone else altogether. Just because it is within the same 'Group' doesn't make it right, Cabot have got away with it for so long because they hide under this 'Cabot Financial' and 'Cabot Group' personna and they do it without having obtained any proof the debt exists (ie: with sight if the original Credit Agreement first). That makes it even worse. They are going to get thrashed over these once we have the final 'i's' dotted and 't''s crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...