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

[car2403]

Not sure I've uploaded correctly (rusty again!) so hope this works

 

Where's the statement on the protection and remedies available under the Act?

[RobinWayRobinme]

Could they be overleaf car

R

Where's the statement on the protection and remedies available under the Act?

[RobinWayRobinme]

BO, can you determine from the amount they are claiming whether it is the total balance on the account or arrears? I also note that the interest they say they are claiming is only up to judgment. This would be correct as they are not allowed to add post judgment interest to judgmnet debt, even if agreement states they are entitled to it.

 

To be honest, I am struggling to find much to go on at the moment, apart from the NOA and I do agree with the earlier post that that is not one of the strongest arguments, but it is stil an argument

R

[RobinWayRobinme]

ShXt, just looked at your agreement again and yes they would just be claiming the arrears, which is the same as the total balance as the loan was for 48 months from 1999 and therefore arrears now is all that is owing on the account. Sorry BO.

R

[Brassed off]

Got it in one R

 

The original balance I owed is now doubled with all their interest added on

 

I suppose I could reclaim charges from the OC to offset this?

[RobinWayRobinme]

Just need time to consider tactics BO as it seems NOA is only option at moment. Must admit, its not looking good.

R

Got it in one R

 

The original balance I owed is now doubled with all their interest added on

 

I suppose I could reclaim charges from the OC to offset this?

[PriorityOne]

Cabot do not become the creditor - they only buy the receivables (or rights) they do not buy the account or the duties, those remain with the OC

 

Where do you get this information from please? It sounds like wordplay to me... over an issue that was raised a few years ago and squashed by The Cabot Fan Club.

 

Got it in one R

 

The original balance I owed is now doubled with all their interest added on

 

I suppose I could reclaim charges from the OC to offset this?

 

Where does it state anywhere that they have the legal right to add interest and/or charges?. If they haven't bought the Agreement (as suggested in the above quote) then they can't have bought the right to add interest in line with the t&cs of that Agreement. Which way are they going to play this one then?

 

Just need time to consider tactics BO as it seems NOA is only option at moment. Must admit, its not looking good.

R

 

NOA is not enough Bo.... Your defence has to be either an unenforceable CCA, lack of/inaccurate DN and/or unlawful charges added to the account prior to it's sale which should invalidate the assignment.

 

I would also go after written clarification as to the type of assignment this is, what their precise legal obligations are in connection to that assignment and also.... a complete breakdown of all post-assignment interest/charges, including the legal basis for adding and justifying them to the alleged balance.

 

If this is not made clear to you prior to court proceedings, then these questions need to be asked in court....

 

[car2403]

Maybe you want to use these 2 weeks to negotiate a settlement that is reasonable and affordable for you?

[PriorityOne]

 

Cymru, if you look at Mr Blue's post #30, I did get an Agreement which is filled in even though they state they don't have to provide it (it didn't mention Agreement in the POC). There was a blank agreement in with all the photocopied stuff behind though.

 

Bo, are you saying that they supplied a blank reconstruction? Are you also saying that Cabot claim that they don't have to supply an Agreement (because your CCA request went to the OC, for example)?

 

A blank Agreement is meaningless here. Under CCA 1974, they need to have a true copy and have (so far) failed to supply you with that. Cabot tried to swing a similar argument my way some time ago by saying that since the CCA request had gone to the OC and the OC had complied (not with an Agreement they didn't), that there was no further obligation outstanding on their part. I thought this was pants and CCA'd them as well, just to muck up their argument and have heard nothing for nearly 2 years now..... which backs up the fact that they do have to be in possession of a valid Agreement before chasing people for payment; whatever type of assignment they claim it is. We know they do under CCA 1974 anyway....

 

In addition, the amount they're claiming would be incorrect due to unlawful charges interest being added both prior to and following assignment. Without sight of the original Agreement, incl. t&cs, it's therefore impossible for you to determine whether the amount they're claiming is correct and/or if they're legally entitled to add these. If interest/charges have been added, then this should invalidate the assignment because the figure would be incorrect.

 

Where is the DN? Without a DN, it's impossible to compare the figure they're claiming against the figure on the DN and determine whether it was served correctly.

 

Apologies if these points have already been covered.... and apologies for not bringing them up sooner if not. If you need to amend your Defence to highlight any of these points in addition to their non-compliance with CPR, post a "help" post in my "Dissecting the Manchester Test Case" thread and a link to this thread....

 

[PriorityOne]

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

 

Hope the link works

[Fester Tester]

It would appear so far that there are a couple of issues here.

 

Firstly, as BO has already intimated somewhere but I can't find offhand, there may be charges applied by the OC, to which they were not entitled.

 

Secondly, Cabot have absolutely no right whatsoever to be adding their own 12% interest rate. And if I understand correctly, they are seeking to have a statutory 8% added on top of that.

 

I do think that, whilst there does not seem to be an actual defence against the fact that BO is liable to repay A debt, I certainly don't think that Cabot are entitled to the amount that they have claimed.

 

So in a sense, that is defense enough. Except I don't think it would end there. So I think the best plan is to look carefully at the figures, and try to calculate what might be a more reasonable liability. Have you got statements from Cabot, BO?

 

Morally of course, since the bloody computer never worked properly in the first place, this is all bolleaux and the OC should have sorted all this out ages ago. But we're talking pre-CAG and similar forum days, and so we need to accept that the consumer savviness (is that a word?) was pretty much non existent back then.

[RobinWayRobinme]

I would agree with priorityone that the NOA alone is probably not enough. However, if a defence is entered based on charges and interest since the end of the agreement (4 years from start of agreement) by OC and or cabot then if it were me, I would also include non service of valid NOA as well because, at worse it helps demonstrate that OC or cabot don't give a damn about the law and, at best it may work to tip the scales.

 

Can anyone say if there is a spreadsheet somewhere that BO can use to determine what the debt should be at time of claim if cabot and OC had played according to the rules?

 

Car's suggestion ranks quite high for me. May be able to get more than 14 days if a defence can be put together

R

[car2403]

I think you mean a partial defence, admitting part of the claim (the part you agree with) and defending the rest. (the interest and charges, for example)

 

[RobinWayRobinme]

Yes, my brain not fully fuctional at mo. Although, if the NOA issue was also included it would not be a partial defence.

R

I think you mean a partial defence, admitting part of the claim (the part you agree with) and defending the rest. (the interest and charges, for example)

 

[car2403]

Yes, my brain not fully fuctional at mo. Although, if the NOA issue was also included it would not be a partial defence.

R

 

Well, debatable, as the defence will be total for this claim, but not against another brought by the OC or by Cabot once the assigment issues are resolved - delaying the inevitable, somewhat?

[RobinWayRobinme]

Agree totally, but would it allow more time to agree a settlement? All I'm suggesting is that if the objective is to get a settlement then, as a tactic, rightly concentrate on the charges/interest issue but with the NOA (if not correctly served) remaining an issue, in a negotiation, it may put BO in a stronger position to get a better deal. Do you see my point, if the matter is not settled, the NOA can be dropped before it gets to trial, even if that is on the door step.

Well, debatable, as the defence will be total for this claim, but not against another brought by the OC or by Cabot once the assigment issues are resolved - delaying the inevitable, somewhat?

[car2403]

Agree totally, but would it allow more time to agree a settlement? All I'm suggesting is that if the objective is to get a settlement then, as a tactic, rightly concentrate on the charges/interest issue but with the NOA (if not correctly served) remaining an issue, in a negotiation, it may put BO in a stronger position to get a better deal. Do you see my point, if the matter is not settled, the NOA can be dropped before it gets to trial, even if that is on the door step.

 

Ah, a stalling tactic!

[George White]

Hi It may be a good idea to concentrate on lack of Default Notice. Had a recent case management hearing with Morgans/Cabot wich lasted about five minutes. Judge told them their arguments for not supplying a default notice were ridiculous. 1.They were seeking to terminate by bringing court action. 2. Reducing credit limit to O does not mean that they are not seeking earlier repayment of a debt. Asked them again if they had supplied a default notice or not to which the answer was. "it appears not." Immediately struck out the case to which the solicitor said "we will appeal." Told "you dont have a hope in hell." "In fact I will write on here permission to appeal refused." so all over in five minutes and the only words that I spoke were a thank you sir to the judge!

[car2403]

Hi It may be a good idea to concentrate on lack of Default Notice. Had a recent case management hearing with Morgans/Cabot wich lasted about five minutes. Judge told them their arguments for not supplying a default notice were ridiculous. 1.They were seeking to terminate by bringing court action. 2. Reducing credit limit to O does not mean that they are not seeking earlier repayment of a debt. Asked them again if they had supplied a default notice or not to which the answer was. "it appears not." Immediately struck out the case to which the solicitor said "we will appeal." Told "you dont have a hope in hell." "In fact I will write on here permission to appeal refused." so all over in five minutes and the only words that I spoke were a thank you sir to the judge!

 

There isn't a need for a Default Notice here! :confused:

 

I'd also suggest that your Judge isn't 'typical' in his approach - although I've had a similar experience in some cases, and it is funny to watch

[gh2008]

Ok, going back to basics.

 

Is there anywhere on the agreement where you agreed that they could charge interest on arrears? - If not then all you owe IMHO are the 'unpaid repayments'

There is no provision for charging interest at all - there is an APR quoted however that is purely for 'cost of credit' not interest calculations.

 

 

or any other fees or late payment fees or anything else that may have been added to the account?

 

You still have the S86© BUT that is redeemable - but I think they may struggle to make it accurate.

 

Bearing in mind the situation with the goods - did you query that with the finance co at the time?

[gh2008]

Agreement is improperly executed for various reasons - none of which are really prejudicing you though

 

BUT IMHO if this was a 'store agreement' then I presume you had 'face to face' negotiations ... in which case teh agreement is a cancellable agreement

this one could be interesting as wouldn't the creditor have been liable for the goods (or the extended warranty) not being 'fit for purpose'

 

IMHO you may be able to show that you were prejudiced here by the cancellation & the 'protection & remedies' as you were not made aware of teh fact the creditor was liable for the goods when the supplier went belly up.

[gh2008]

From a Trading Standards FactSheet

CONNECTED LENDER LOANS

This is one of the most common forms of credit agreement you may enter

into. Usually for items such as large pieces of furniture, electrical goods or

home improvements. The credit will have been arranged for you by the

retailer/supplier.

With these type of agreements, providing the contract price of the goods

and/or services is over £100, both the retailer and the finance company are

jointly liable for any difficulties that you may have.

This means that for any breach of contract, you can claim compensation from either the retailer,

or the finance company or both. Although we would advise you to approach the retailer first.

This can definitely be of benefit if the retailer has ceased trading, as you may still seek redress

from the finance company.

 

I am sure that, had you been made aware of this, you would have acted on it - definite prejudice IMHO

[RobinWayRobinme]

No Car, far from it. The reason for stating what I said was if the objective was to negotiate a settlement (I made this clear in my post). If you are entering into negotiations with anyone you do not declare any weaknesses in your argument. You play them hard and agressive so that you can get the best deal possible. All good negotiators do it, including politicians and the people we are up against, banks, DCA's, solicitors and baristers. So no, not a stalling tactic.

R

Ah, a stalling tactic!

[Brassed off]

I will reply shortly honestly!! Just going through paperwork - again!

[Brassed off]

 

Where does it state anywhere that they have the legal right to add interest and/or charges?. If they haven't bought the Agreement (as suggested in the above quote) then they can't have bought the right to add interest in line with the t&cs of that Agreement. Which way are they going to play this one then?

 

It doesn't state anywhere that they have the legal right to add interest and/or charges. I don't have any terms and conditions despite chasing the OC for these years ago which suggests that I signed the Agreement without sight or a copy of the T&Cs. If Cabot are claiming that the Agreement hasn't been terminated then I do need the T&Cs to prepare a Defence.

 

 

NOA is not enough Bo.... Your defence has to be either an unenforceable CCA, lack of/inaccurate DN and/or unlawful charges added to the account prior to it's sale which should invalidate the assignment.

 

I would also go after written clarification as to the type of assignment this is, what their precise legal obligations are in connection to that assignment and also.... a complete breakdown of all post-assignment interest/charges, including the legal basis for adding and justifying them to the alleged balance.

 

They state in their letter (page 2 of this thread) that they have asked for a SOA from the Assignor which should give me a breakdown of post-assignment interest/charges. I need to write back to them regarding how they justify the alleged balance. Thanks P1.

 

If this is not made clear to you prior to court proceedings, then these questions need to be asked in court....

 

Received and understood ;-)

 

 

It would appear so far that there are a couple of issues here.

 

Firstly, as BO has already intimated somewhere but I can't find offhand, there may be charges applied by the OC, to which they were not entitled.

 

Secondly, Cabot have absolutely no right whatsoever to be adding their own 12% interest rate. And if I understand correctly, they are seeking to have a statutory 8% added on top of that.

 

I do think that, whilst there does not seem to be an actual defence against the fact that BO is liable to repay A debt, I certainly don't think that Cabot are entitled to the amount that they have claimed.

 

So in a sense, that is defense enough. Except I don't think it would end there. So I think the best plan is to look carefully at the figures, and try to calculate what might be a more reasonable liability. Have you got statements from Cabot, BO?

 

I only have a SOA which was provided with the info from Morgans showing the 12% interest.

 

Morally of course, since the bloody computer never worked properly in the first place, this is all bolleaux and the OC should have sorted all this out ages ago. But we're talking pre-CAG and similar forum days, and so we need to accept that the consumer savviness (is that a word?) was pretty much non existent back then.

 

Tell me about it! It worked for about nine months and then just wouldn't switch on. When I rang to enquire how I could claim on the extended warranty (4 years), I was told I would have to box my computer up and drive it to them to have it fixed and leave it there and collect the next day ! I paid over £500 for their "Gold Service"yet never got any info on it. I've even found the Engineers report saying it needed a new motherboard. It lasted about six months after that! Too late then as the computer place had gone bust.

 

 

I would agree with priorityone that the NOA alone is probably not enough. However, if a defence is entered based on charges and interest since the end of the agreement (4 years from start of agreement) by OC and or cabot then if it were me, I would also include non service of valid NOA as well because, at worse it helps demonstrate that OC or cabot don't give a damn about the law and, at best it may work to tip the scales.

 

Ah but according to Cabot (Morgans), the Agreement hasn't been terminated. See para 5 of their letter on page 2.

 

Can anyone say if there is a spreadsheet somewhere that BO can use to determine what the debt should be at time of claim if cabot and OC had played according to the rules?

 

Car's suggestion ranks quite high for me. May be able to get more than 14 days if a defence can be put together

R

 

A spreadsheet would be good !