Subbing, shape of things to come me thinks!! I keep requesting stay coz Monument, then Barclaycard have not sent me ALL documentation under DPA....just sent Barclaycard 'Letter Before Action'. Was looking at bringing them into claim as Cabot's client. It's a minefield innit? SHERLOCK

POET, its good to hear from y'self........still keeping the wolf from the door??? The Tomlin order which apparently is 'without prejudice' basically allowed me to pay 7 quid for 500 months. Do not want CCJ or the debt (poor, poor morals me knows!) but I cannot afford to pay debt off in one lump. Looks like I will have to sign the Tomlin as I see a very difficult, rocky road with the 'unenforceable' angle, (even though the terms are missing). I have sent SAR to Monument and will get reduction on debt due to unlawful charges (credit card). Have had to request stay extension a couple of times becoz Monument have not provided the statements as yet(also hoping other things turn up, u never know). At a loss really what to pursue, obviously the unenforceable angle being the better outcome if it went my way

Hi Folks, apologies if I repeat myself..this is where I'm at: 1) following Morgan's attempt to pursue a claim in court I have requested a stay pending a DPA 1998 Request from original lender. 2) Morgans have sent me two offers proposed within a Tomlin Order 3)I believe they have constructed the documents to supposedly come together as a valid agreement. 4)The original agrrement (REPLY CARD) has been shown by Caggers to be invalid, see earlier thread for agreement. 5) I have requested extension to stay again as Monument have still not supplied me with the original documents (I believe I cannot construct a proper defence without these papers as they may / may not verify Cabot's claim), the request was made 60 days ago as of todays date. I am at a point of getting a bit bogged down with what I am hoping to achieve and would really appreciate some guidance. I read lots of forums on here and end up 2 hours later thinking OK what next (information overload, me thinks) Appreciate some clarity thanks, SHERLOCK

What a comforting thought I was wondering if I should send them a letter with a proposal of my own......summin along the lines of write it off coz you've sent me a sh1...tte type cardboard replica agreement thingy, but I don't think the judge would take this as attempting to settle the claim Looks like I will have to fight the unenforceable angle, as a side note, if I were to lose, I'm guessing I couldn't go back then and accept the 'Tomlin' proposal as they would then have their CCJ! Then again, would they really accept payment over 500 months if they thought I wouldn't win in court? Additionally, If I signed the order, does that mean they cannot then up the monthly payment even if I were to increase my income?

bump

The next stage... The court agreed to a months stay for me to mediate with solicitors and vice versa. received today a 'we write further to your proposed offer of settlement via (my DMP). N.B - I am assuming that bcoz I have a DMP and recently updated my income and expenditure (which meant they get a little bit more each month on this account) that they are assuming that this is a 'proposal' They have enc. a 'Tomlin Order' that I can sign and return, the payment terms are my new monthly amount over......wait for it......500 consecutive months. Schedule 2 of the order states, if defendant defaults, claimant be at liberty to enter judgement for the sum then outstanding. I do know that there will be excess card charges on this account and I will quite easily get the amount reduced, however, haven't gone down that route bcoz I was hoping I wouldn't have to I need some helpful advice please. Am I to ignore this and proceed with 'no enforceable agreement' and the hearing OR do I now send them an option of my own?? All advice welcome, Regards, SHERLOCK

'otherwise we could all have several accounts in different names' Thats just my point, I opened an account by post for my 16 year old daughter (nearest co-op branch 20 miles away) and they requested a birth certificate verified with a doctors/solicitors/professional's signature and then she had to ring up to set the online bank. I can't accept for one minute that an account is opened without verifying details of some nature (with or without your knowledge), else any tom dick or harry could open an account and launder money etc. In essence my daughter could have been any female on gods earth!

often the info can be confusing and credit check details are generally hidden somewhere in the small details. However, I'm not sure basic accounts are given without credit checks as names still have to be verified etc. I think maybe its just that the checks aren't used to determine suitability, I may stand corrected on this. The banking inclusion directives (with regard basic banking for everyone) were set by the EC some years ago in collaboration with the banks and all details can be found here: Financial inclusion - HM Treasury Sherlock

my file is pants and we got a cashminder with the Co-op around 3 years ago, dunno why they are refusing. The visa debit card they issued us recently might be the problem, it replaced the previous visa electron and is now I believe classed as an online debit card, wotever that means. Just make sure that the account you apply for doesn't have any connections to other banks in the same group (if you owe them money), they can and do exchange info for sure, Heres a link to the basic bank account list and their connections, http://www.payplan.com/pdf/bank_acc.pdf , the symbols show linked accounts. Sherlock

Heres the new draft, hopefully everything is in place. Advice sought with regard 'strike-out' in due time. Thanks again Brent........ G. Other Information: In order to manage and/or clarify the claim and for intention to maintain the suitability for a small claims track, I wish to make clear at this point that the relevant issues of law and acts/regulations (with regard to unenforceable agreements) (below) that I will rely on in my defence have already been determined. 1) The case of Wilson & Ors v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (10 July 2003) 2) Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Schedule 6 of the 1983 regulations These dealt with and clarified the nature and effect of unenforceable agreements (entered into prior to 2007) and make it clear that the required information must be included in the same document and not merely referred to in another document. Additionally, the provisions of the CPR, especially part 26.6, sets out the parameters with regards suitability for the Small Claims Track: 26.6 1) The small claims track is the normal track for……. (3) ...... the small claims track is the normal track for any claim which has a value of not more than £5,000. And, (5) The fast track is the normal track for the claims referred to in paragraph (4) only if the court considers that - (a) The trial is likely to last for no longer than one day; and (b) Oral expert evidence at trial will be limited to – (i)one expert per party in relation to any expert field; and (ii) expert evidence in two expert fields, Cabot THEMSELVES admit that: 1. The value is less than £5000 AND 2. The hearing would only last four hours Therefore, it is considered that FAST TRACK is NOT appropriate. Yours Faithfully,

Thanks again Brent, I have to take this in today and am in the process of typing up word document and attach to AQ. I will now add the extra info, Brent, read the strike-out info (n244), there is provision for application of strike-out without hearing, I'm assuming CABOT would be allowed to challenge this??

OK Brent, thats why your posts are invaluable, even at 3am I would rather not go to hearing if at all possible, but seems I may have to. I'm assuming the former part of the note is acceptable? I think I will proceed with the strike out when I have to put my defence papers in. The 1st agreement sent to me 1 year ago did not show supposed 'bar code' application stamp shown on subsequent 2nd agreement, alongside not containing the prescribed terms. I'm hoping to go with the 'constructed document' as defined in yr own thread. Thanks again, Sherlock

Posty thats great, you can make any amendments you feel suitable whilst I await my file, thanks again for your time, much appreciated.

thanks, can u take a quick look at my AQ INFO

POSTY, poor info on this I'm afraid. credit file is from 2003 (shows Citifinancial Europe PLC, credit card) and my monthly status is 00000000000 (payments up to date) which is not the case now obviously I will apply for the credit file online and have to get back to you. Thanks for your time with this, if you can put your letter up I will send it asap, sorry again . Hillesden did request the info from Citifinancial, not sure who placed the default though! Sherlock

sorry ggj, been busy with my AQ. I WILL CHECK, GIVE ME 2MINS

Hi folks, heres my AQ reply, any advice or ex/inclusions welcome, this has to be handed in tomorrow so any adjustments required sent promptly, regards Sherlock. Dear Sir/Madam, Date: December 2009 In order to manage and/or clarify the claim and for intention to maintain the suitability for a small claims track, I wish to make clear at this point that the relevant issues of law and acts/regulations (with regard to unenforceable agreements) (below) that I will rely on in my defence have already been determined. 1) The case of Wilson & Ors v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (10 July 2003) 2) Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Schedule 6 of the 1983 regulations These dealt with and clarified the nature and effect of unenforceable agreements (entered into prior to 2007) and make it clear that the required information must be included in the same document and not merely referred to in another document. Furthermore, it is with the permission of the judge that the claim (where it is shown to be unenforceable) be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, section 1.7: 1.7 A party may believe he can show without a trial that an opponent’s case has no real prospect of success on the facts, or that the case is bound to succeed or fail, as the case may be, because of a point of law (including the construction of a document). In such a case the party concerned may make an application under rule 3.4 or Part 24 (or both) as he thinks appropriate. Yours Faithfully,

Thank You, in the meantime, I will get online email addresses + I have to complete my AQ 'strike out' letter for Cabot defence. busy times Speak to you soon, Sherlock

Hi GGJ, is the letter in the CRA link?

I WILL EMAIL ALL CRA'S. how many cra's are there, I assume I have to inform all of them?

Thank you for the advice, If I can get this discontinued before a hearing that would be good, wishful thinking eh! It is quite nerve wracking to sit in front of a judge and claimant barrister and argue legal points, even if you understand the points. So I need to keep it simple, in laymans terms as it were. AQ due in tomorrow so I will go with strike out and cross my fingers, Thanks again, Sherlock

Sorry Pinky, the impatience quip was uncalled for and I consider myself duly 'wrist-slapped'. OK, they're off my debt plan! Waiting for credit file to check for default etc. Upon receiving file will undertake complaints procedure (they did state they will carry on reporting to cra's)

Hi all, 2 quick questions for my court defence re: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/42264-cabot-financial-defending-court-2.html 1) can I request a strike out of a claim at AQ stage (constructed document/unenforceable agreement)? 2) Do I have to pay? Have looked but cannot find if fee is applicable if stated at AQ stage, or if a strike out is allowed at this stage. Can someone point me in the right direction Festive Greetings, Sherlock

Merry Christmas people The claim has moved on now and I have received my Allocation Questionnaire and Morgn's (solicitor for the claimants) filed AQ. The CCJ is in respect of an alleged amount of 4000. Not sent mine off yet, Cabot have requested fast track and quote the reason: Although the claim is within the financial remit of the small claims track, the defendant' defence has raised several issues of law which might be more properly determined by allowing more time to deal with such issues, estimated costs of around 1500 pounds. Also they have placed 'yes' for mediation, a months stay and 4 hours for the hearing. Anyway, I will need help with my AQ in the next few days and would appreciate putting together a 'watertight' case, if that is EVER possible. For pre-action protocols: 'you are expected to comply with the relevant pre-action protocols, Have you done so? they state 'No', and 'there is no relevant pre-action protocol in relation to debt claims. We do however endeavour to comply with the spirit of existing pre-action protocols and pre-action conduct in general'. This is what I believe at the moment I go with small claims and am looking at this time to add the info with regard 'unenforceable agreement' in the 'information to help the judge' box. What I don't want is Cabot going off on a tangent, I believe everything else is irrelevant if the original agreement isn't supplied in the correct form. Have to go now but will reply later, thanks for any help at this time, SHERLOCK

the CABOT ASSIGNMENT OF DEED template letter, up above, thread 143! Hadit, is the original creditor Monument? I'm assuming G Taylor is the head of credit services for Monument, he is in my letter. Lazy buggers can't be bothered requesting the original assignment letter so they make up there own! Just thought on, I'm gonna request the original letter seeing as they started a court claim on my monument card, any chance of a copy of that template, I think another example of creating a document for evidence shows them up. My supposed 'reply card' application even had a bar code and 'application form' stamped underneath (It wasn't there when I received a copy first time round)!!