County Court Claim form received - Cabot ***WON***

[the_shadow]

Ok, so they are saying that the account is live AND more importantly they are the creditor.

 

GH I dont believe they are claiming this.. the agreement is a fixed term agreement of 48 months from execution which was in 99 I believe.

 

Hence they are claiming the full amount as arrears as the period of repaying the whole amount whilst not due(within that 48 months) (a s87 default situation) is not occurring.

 

S.

[Rhia]

I'm not so hot on fixed term argeements Shadow. So what would be the case if, say, they had issued a Default Notice?

[gh2008]

If the account is not live, how can there be arrears??

 

They have stated that they have NOT terminated the account - if the account is not terminated then what is it ......

 

Cabot can't have it both ways - either the account is terminated - or it is not ...

[the_shadow]

If the account is not live, how can there be arrears??

 

They have stated that they have NOT terminated the account - if the account is not terminated then what is it ......

 

Cabot can't have it both ways - either the account is terminated - or it is not ...

 

This is their and other cases I have seen on here's argument; that because the period of the fixed term contract (48 months) from 1999 is passed, everything is now classed as arrears, it would only be a s87 default if they were attempting to claim something which is not due... which now is not the case. Hence their claim that a default is not needed nor will be relied on.

 

I think youre right about the termination/not terminated tho.

 

S.

[gh2008]

I appreciate there NOT being a need for a DN (I was arguing that point a while ago)

but only IF and that is a big IF the account has NOT been terminated. IF the account is not terminated then by assumption it is still live. As Cabot have bought the account (rather than the debt or the receivables) then they ARE THE CREDITOR.

 

IF the account is not live then at some stage is has been terminated and therefore a DN was required as the account was in default.

 

Now, if the account was not terminated then the creditor (now Cabot) have certain responsibilities under the CCA ad if they do not fulfil those they are unable to enforce .....

[Rhia]

This is very interesting and odd. What if the OC had issued a DN and it's just that Cabot can't produce a copy? Would this make any difference to their stance in claiming arrears as to my way of thinking if a SAR - just as a for example - could show DN was issued by the OC then Cabot couldn't claim arrears could they?

 

If no DN then as gh2008 states they should be producing statements and complying fully with the terms of the agreement. In other words the only difference to the debtor should be a different name on the statements etc.

[gh2008]

Yes, exactly

 

(Although, of course there was a DN and presumably a TN - the former being defective and therefore invalid. So Cabot are trying to be 'clever')

 

An S79 request should bring back the required info as to teh current creditor and state of the account.

[Rhia]

Said this many times before but Cabot and "clever" aren't words which go together. Without looking back Bo did you SAR the original creditor? If so have a good look for evidence of a DN or a TN in their records.

[andrew1]

Yes, exactly

 

So Cabot are trying to be 'clever'

 

 

They won't succeed in trying to be clever, they will never succeed, and they should give up trying to succeed.

 

No DN - stuffed! End of.

 

Cabot and Morgans (ex Hodsons Fools) have just spent a phenominal amount of money in legal fees (30k +) on a debt they probably paid about £2k for, against me trying to be clever on a Bank Of Scotland account, but they were up against the might of the amazing Cabot Fan Club and didn't know it.

 

This is vexacious litigation Brassed Off, they should not be persuing cases which they are fully aware are full of holes. Morgans had my account under the careful and intelligent, professional and watchful eye of Ian Lill and very recently they issued a default notice (Morgans did this I repeat ) to my other half when they realised Cabot hadn't issued one in 2006. Mine was a joint account and cabot only ever issued proceedings and wrote to me. They issued the DN just to try and get this through court. I'll be writing about this in another thread, but if a DCA or Debt Purchaser does not have the correct information to collect a debt they should not be trying to hoodwink or con the debtor and courts into thinking they have - it's deception or maybe even fraud to try to obtain monies or a pecuniary advantage with the wrong documents, so BO - keep it simple, NO DN - go tell Wellie and his Morgan Hodsons fools to take a hike.

 

Also BO - that redacted information is not permitted under the Human Rights Act - get them to supply the whole lot or forget it.

 

This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Cabot Fan Club are out to stamp out, our initial and only aims are to make the Debt Collection Industry abide by the law - not invent their own - So Maynard - watch out, you might be needing your chums in Mischons again to bail you out of your murky little practices. - It either stops or you pay massive legal bills like you did with mine and you will keep on doing so until the message finally reaches your desk.

 

Give up on the likes of Brassed Off's case and give people a break - if you have the right legal documents then fine - sue away, if you don't - then stop breaking the law - see ? KIS Keep It Simple. You might even get another trophy to show off!

 

Go get em BO.

Edited October 2, 2010 by andrew1

[Rhia]

Good stuff fellow CFCer. I have turned this over and over and the only conclusion I can draw is this agreement will have been defaulted by the OC. Therefore a DN must exist. Have you looked at your credit record Bo. If not get on to Experian to start with and see if they are carrying anything. You may have to SAR them too but it could be useful as if they have been registering a DN under the conditions they claim they are in for data protection issues too.

[Brassed off]

Crikey lots of replies on here - apologies for my late posting.

 

Hi Haditup – shot themselves in the foot on their replies to my Part 18s methinks. Originally, they weren’t relying on the Consumer Credit Act but it seems they’ve changed their minds!!

 

Gh – I haven’t been receiving regular statements from Cabot, only an SOA when I’ve requested it.

 

Shadow – they state that they are claiming the arrears but they’ve added their own 12% interest on top and court costs on top of that which doubles the amount originally owed. Without seeing T&Cs from December 1999 how can I possibly know what I agreed to originally?

 

Rhia:-

 

"I'm not so hot on fixed term agreements Shadow. So what would be the case if, say, they had issued a Default Notice?"

I’d like to know the answer to Rhia's question too please Shadow

 

Posted by gh:-

 

Now, if the account was not terminated then the creditor (now Cabot) have certain responsibilities under the CCA and if they do not fulfil those they are unable to enforce .....

 

Agreed!

 

So do I need to CCA Cabot then gh? I’ve already SAR’d them and am still waiting for their promised CD – they don’t have a lot of time left to produce it! Or perhaps another Part 18 request to Morgans?

 

Rhia :-

 

"Said this many times before but Cabot and "clever" aren't words which go together. Without looking back Bo did you SAR the original creditor? If so have a good look for evidence of a DN or a TN in their records."

 

Yes I did SAR the OC originally Rhia. They never fully replied to it though, despite chasing them on several occasions. I’ll see what I can dig out.

 

Andrew:-

 

Hi Andrew

 

I’ve never had a DN from Cabot themselves.

 

What a nightmare for you and your wife. So they continue to pursue even though they know that they don’t have all the correct documentation??

 

Presumably they do this as there may be many people who aren’t aware of their rights like us Caggers.

 

I didn’t know about the redacted information not being permitted under the Human Rights Act. I’ll be reading up on that too thanks. There was a lot more redacted information attached to their reply to my last Part 18.

 

Looking forward to reading about your case too.

 

I feel another Part 18 coming on….

 

Still no T&Cs or DN from Morgans.

 

I haven't checked my credit file recently Rhia but I know from checking it a few years ago, that there is a default registered by Kings Hill. I'll get on to Experian for an up to date copy.

 

Will post up Morgans AQ replies shortly...

 

TIA

 

Bo

[Hadituptohere]

Hi Brassed off

 

Heres something I thought would be usefull from pt in Karenzas thread

 

I am fighting this company myself, for a client, and the interest point is oone t hey will struggle with, as the contract at the point of assignment transfers to Cabot, therefore, on transfer, you need to establish if it was still live or dead, if they say its still live, then they have to adhere to section 82 CCA 1974 to change the rate of interest and i know they will not have done so, its t heir standard practice to charge 12% without contractual basis

 

Hope this is off use on your battle

 

Hadituptohere

[Brassed off]

Cheers Haditup - better go and read S82 then

[Brassed off]

OK, Cabot's AQ response:-

 

This is their response on an N150 (my AQ was on an N149 - not sure how relevant that is):-

 

Brief details:-

 

They want to settle the claim before the hearing.

They want a one month stay to do this.

They don't want the court to arrange a mediation appointment but they will endeavour to give advance disclosure of their evidence and thereafter, mediation might be considered appropriate.

They have said that they haven't complied with the relevant pre-action protocol because there is no pre-action protocol in relation to debt claims. They do however endeavour to comply with the spirit of existing pre-action protocols.

They don't wish to use expert evidence at the trial or final hearing.

They consider the small claims track is suitable for their claim.

They estimate the trial or final hearing will take 2 hours.

Shedloads of days when they are not available !!

Costs incurred to date £110

Estimated overall costs likely to be £1,000

 

I see there have been quite a few "registered Caggers" at the bottom of my thread but despite being registered for around two years, they have still to post.

 

Paranoid? Moi?

[cymruambyth]

You are popular, guests and all!

Paranoia and Cabot, surely not.

[Rhia]

Turning in time for me but Cabot gave me a bedtime chuckle. They really are an endless source of merriment...from the word go.

 

Like they'd like to settle. I bet they would.

 

They'd like a month to settle and avoid mediation...I bet they would.

 

And there are no pre action protocols for debt recovery. WTF? Only on Planet Cabot. Let's just briefly explain. You are using the court system to make a claim. Regardless of what that claim is for you are expected to observe pre action protocols as laid down by HM Govt's court service.

 

And just which expert would pop his or her head above the parapet in defence of this old cobblers?

 

Costs - forget them £1k is just to frighten you.

 

Priceless. Just priceless.

[cymruambyth]

Bo, when you get your disc from Cabot, at the last possible date, it will show a CRA check with all the deefaukts from Cabot, it will also show a land registry check which was carried out before legal action began!

[Brassed off]

I've not told them what my costs as an LIP are yet Rhia

 

I miss my laughing smilie

[cymruambyth]

Re the costs, there is something in the CPR (I think) that sets the limits for the different courts; could they be trying to scare you into submission:jaw:

[Brassed off]

Bo, when you get your disc from Cabot, at the last possible date, it will show a CRA check with all the deefaukts from Cabot, it will also show a land registry check which was carried out before legal action began!

 

Well that'll save me a job then Cymru

[gh2008]

Interesting they only quote costs of £1k IMHO they are trying to cap YOUR costs to 2/3 of theirs when they lose

The 'normal' costs to this point would be over £3k with £3k the quote for going to the hearing

 

@BO I would seriously consider a Part18 request to clarify the current status of the account.

If it is terminated then when and by whom was it terminated

and if it has not been terminated then who is the current creditor as you wish to see a copy of the current agreement together with all T&Cs.

[Rhia]

I agree - there's a few other things that need clarifying too so whilst you have this opportunity get the answers. IMO they are also requesting a stay not - as they state - to negotiate a settlement but because this case is seriously flawed.

[Brassed off]

Interesting they only quote costs of £1k IMHO they are trying to cap YOUR costs to 2/3 of theirs when they lose

The 'normal' costs to this point would be over £3k with £3k the quote for going to the hearing

 

@BO I would seriously consider a Part18 request to clarify the current status of the account.

If it is terminated then when and by whom was it terminated

and if it has not been terminated then who is the current creditor as you wish to see a copy of the current agreement together with all T&Cs.

 

I like this!

 

OK, OC SAR’d today. That should be interesting. So to clarify then. Part 18 request for the following:-

 

Current status of account. Terminated or not terminated? If terminated, when and by whom? If not, then who is the current creditor as I wish to see a copy of the current agreement (the one from May 2000) together with all T&Cs and related documents.

 

 

I agree - there's a few other things that need clarifying too so whilst you have this opportunity get the answers. IMO they are also requesting a stay not - as they state - to negotiate a settlement but because this case is seriously flawed.

 

What else should I be requesting Rhia?

[Brassed off]

Received this from the court at the weekend ;-)

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. Unless by XX Oct 2010 the Claimant files full particulars of claim including reference to the original

contract, and if a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act

 

a) a copy of the agreement

b) a statement of account

c) the default notice

d) documentary evidence of the assignment

 

The claim will be struck out

 

2. On compliance by the Claimant with paragraph 1 hereof the Defendant shall send to the Court and to the Claimant

a fully pleaded defence.

 

3. This Order was issued without a hearing, if you object to this order you have 7 days from the date of service of this

order to apply to set aside, or revoke this order.

 

Dated XX September 2010

[Hadituptohere]

That sounds like great news Brassed off, fingers and toes crossed for you

 

Looks like another DJ thats feed up of morgans silly antics

 

Hadituptohere