Babble vs Cabot/Monument

[citizenB]

Well now, that is the oddest response I have ever seen in respect of a CPR18

 

I think vj and donkeyb will know about the assignments not having been signed by Directors.

 

Default Notice. They are wrong. Before they can ask for the FULL amount, then they must issue (or the original creditor) must have issued a DN asking for the arears and giving you a statutory period in which to remedy the breach.. end of story.

 

As for destroying statements or account history. How does the "industry practice" square up with the money laundering laws which say they have to keep this information for so many years (5 I think) after the business relationship has ended ??

[DonkeyB]

It's interesting... and there are issues. Back later.

[Hadituptohere]

Is there anything in the account sale agreement being between Barclays and Kingshill neither are in the POC's???????

 

Hadituptohere

[DonkeyB]

That's all OK, as Kingshill changed its name to Cabot AFTER that agreement was formed, and the company number is the same.

 

The issues are with the legality of the 'deed' documents, the zero-relationship between the application forms and wrong T&Cs; I'm looking at the issues around termination.

 

There are things to get hold of here, but I'm going to need a while to go over them as my blooming clients are getting in the way by requiring me to work!

[patrickq1]

saddle up DONKI and git back to work dude lol

[babble]

Hi Everyone,

 

Still struggling a bit today but thanks for everyones help. There seems to be a lot to go at.

 

I'm not sure what the case management conference is about but I think that's the next step.

 

It says on the order 'the claimant shall seek to agree with the defendant, and file and serve at least four clear days before the case management conference:

 

a) a case summary

b) a statement of the issues to be determined by the court'

 

I wonder if I'll even hear from them? In their allocation questionnaire they asked for a stay of a month to attempt to resolve yet haven't contacted me!

 

Does this mean if they send me a pile of rubbish (which is highly likely judging by their cpr18 response) I can tell them no I don't accept this? What would happen then?

 

I think I will need to get the basis of my arguments together by then. I think if I work through each point of the CPR18 response that will be a good start (as it looks like that is full of holes) as well as anything supporting the defence I submitted.

 

I am going to scan the order and their disclosure statement because the order says 'the parties shall give each other standard discosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement' and I think they have not included all the documents listed on their disclosure statement (which is what I believe it means), just the CPR18 response.

[foolishgirl]

 

I am going to scan the order and their disclosure statement because the order says 'the parties shall give each other standard discosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement' and I think they have not included all the documents listed on their disclosure statement (which is what I believe it means), just the CPR18 response.

 

They don't have to include the docs. with their disclosure list - it's just that, a list. The copy docs. come later at the bundle stage.

 

Have you served your disclosure list on them yet? If not, does the court order state a date by which it has to be done.

[babble]

Hi FG

 

I have sent my diclosure statement to them.

 

On theirs it says pleadings common to both parties.....what does this mean?

 

They haven't signed it either!

[mercyblue]

babble you sure you don't mean pleadings NOT common to both parties?

[babble]

That's what I thought but it clearly says:

1. Pleadings common to both parties.

2. Correspondence common to both parties

etc

 

lol

[foolishgirl]

Hi FG

 

I have sent my diclosure statement to them.

 

On theirs it says pleadings common to both parties.....what does this mean?

 

They haven't signed it either!

 

Pleadings are the statements they claimed on & those you have either agreed with or disagreed with in your defence.

 

What is a definite no,no is the lack of signature. :eek: In fact I think all their evidence could be thrown out by the court on this point alone but maybe someone else will confirm.

 

The CPR31 state that not only must it be signed but the specific person that must sign it & the form of the statement of truth he/she must make. Also did they submit this list on a Form 265?

 

It's a very elementary mistake to make for a company of sols & but if they've boobed big time on this sounds like your case management meeting could be fun...

 

CPR is here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/pdf/practice_directions/pd_part31.pdf

[Hadituptohere]

This is what pt posted on my thread...

 

ah a small problem there

 

they ( morgans ) arent allowed to make that statement in normal conditions

 

 

it should be the claimant who does

 

 

 

Quote:

Who must make a disclosure statement

 

The disclosing party’s list of documents (form N265) must include a disclosure statement 48.20 (CPR, r. 31.10(5)) and the form of statement, which is set out in the annex to PD 31, is included in form N265 with a signature box. A disclosure statement is the statement of the disclosing party, or that party’s insurer or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, rather than a legal representative (CPR, r. 31.10(6)).

 

A disclosure statement is not a mere technicality. Its purpose is to impose a positive duty on each party to give full standard disclosure. If there

are several defendants in a case, each should sign a disclosure statement. Providing a single composite list of documents does not satisfy r. 31.10 (Arrow Trading and Investments v Edwardian Group Ltd [2004] EWHC 1319 (Ch), LTL 25/5/2004).

Where an insurer, or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, it may sign a disclosure statement on behalf of a party (r. 31.10(9); PD 31, para. 4.7).

If the disclosing party is an individual, the disclosure statement is either the party’s own statement, signed by the party or the party’s litigation friend, or is the statement of the party’s insurer or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.

If the disclosing party is not an individual, the disclosure statement must identify the person who is making and signing it and explain why he or she is considered an appropriate person to make it (CPR, r. 31.10(7)). It must state t hat person’s name and address and the office or position he or she holds in the disclosing party (PD 31, para. 4.3). The same rules apply when a disclosure statement is signed by an insurer or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (PD 31, para. 4.7).

If a disclosure order requires a particular person to make disclosure on behalf of a party, that person cannot delegate the duty (Carlco Ltd v Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1754, LTL 18/11/2002). At present, company law permits a company to have officers who are

not individuals (it is proposed to change this in the next revision of the law). In Carlco Ltd v Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police a disclosure order required disclosure to be made by the claimant company’s ‘officer’ and as its only officers were themselves companies, which could not delegate to individuals, no disclosure could be made.

 

the above is from Blackstones Civil Practice 2009

[babble]

I'm going to have another go at getting my scanner working and I'll scan it and any other documents that I still haven't scanned yet. My view; without any other knowledge, is that if a document hasn't been signed it isn't in effect, therefore technically they haven't complied with the order.

 

Briefly reading the post from hadit, it makes it even more interesting....I could see this 30 minute case management conference being either very short or very long.

 

It is N265 that they have used. Both this disclosure statement and the cpr18 response is very amateur.......

[babble]

Here is the link to the remaining docs:

 

[url=

][/url]

[foolishgirl]

Yup, you're right, no signature! Well, they're going to have fun with this one aren't they? (That's if they turn up for the CMC as they have neglected to tell the court they are not available)

 

In the meantime, I think you need to ask to inspect the originals of the credit agreements & the DoAs they say they have copies of for Cap1 & Monument.

This must be done asap by sending a letter to Morgans & asking them for inspection. You can suggest a convenient place eg. local sols. office etc.

 

If they can't produce the originals, then you have to make them come up with a WS from someone who has specific knowledge of where, when, how these copies were made & also proof of their document management procedures. See BRW's excellent post (#315) on this here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/199523-restons-mbna-issued-court-16.html

[Hadituptohere]

Hi foolish in my case morgans have recieved my request to inspect the originals but have sent me photocopies and after another letter to them pointing out this issue was in the directions by the judge they still insist they have fulfilled their obligations in that matter.

 

Would it be better to let morgans think they have fulfilled, then when they try and refer to the document hit them with CPR 31.21 in court?

 

Hadituptohere

[foolishgirl]

I've not read your thread HH but if you are saying that they are defying court directions, I think it may be wiser to hit them with a notice NOW under CPR32.19 that you wish the claimant to prove the authenticity of the docs in court i.e. use the Civil Evidence Act & the BSI on document management. Legal Admissibility, Document Management, Document Imaging, Document Scanning | Archival

 

I think the form is N268 & it's free but check with the court. The forms are here:

PRACTICE DIRECTION – FORMS - Ministry of Justice

 

If you sent them a CPR31.14 before track allocation you can also use a N244 application to make them disclose:

PRACTICE DIRECTION – DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION - Ministry of Justice

& then go for a SJ if they don't.

[Hadituptohere]

Hi sorry wasnt trying to hijack the thread , just thought that if morgans refuse as they had already done so with me the information would be useful

 

unfortunatley I sent them a letter requesting to inspect the original docs after track allocation it was after disclosure as set out in the directions

Thankyou for the advise

 

Hadituptohere

[patrickq1]

then yes the above will be very usefull

[Hadituptohere]

HI patrickq

 

sorry do you mean the N268?

[babble]

Hi FG

 

I'll put something together and post it tomorrow as well as send them an email. I'll have a read of the thread you suggested before I continue.

 

I sent my CPR18 request to them before the track allocation.

 

Don't worry Haditup, it helps me and possibly others to follow (because I don't think I'll be the last) as it's likely they'll behave in the same or similar manner with everyone.

[babble]

I've just noticed whilst looking through their list that it says a 'copy representation of the NoA' for each account. In other words they don't have an original and they are relying on those templates contained within the account sale agreements.

 

I've also had a quick read of the post you mentioned, that's quite interesting.

 

Am going to go write them a little letter now

 

I think I'll suggest they bring them to the main library in the town as it's very close to the court and offer them the opportunity to suggest an alternative; such as a solicitors office, in the town centre. Should I mention that I want to see original documents (as requested in my CPR18) not copies, or wait to see how they respond?

[vjohn82]

You need to see the originals so yes you should mention it as it states so in the CPR.

 

Best to cover your back and not have the Judge say you were being ambiguous ;-)

[babble]

This is what I think I'm going to email to them (as well as send a copy letter):

 

My ref: Document Inspection Request - 1

Morgan Solicitors

5 Mitchell Court

Castle Mound Way

Rugby

CV23 0UY

 

Dear Sir / Madam

 

Please note to avoid any doubt that this is a:

Formal request to inspect original documents as per the Order issued by District Judge Sarah Richardson, 26th February 2010 in relation to claim no. XXX

 

I require the original documents listed below; as stated in your disclosure statement, to be made available for inspection:

 

The credit agreement for the capital one account

The credit agreement for the monument account

The Deed of Assignment for the capital one account

The Deed of Assignment for the monument account

The Notice of Assignment for the capital one account

The Notice of Assignment for the monument account

 

I suggest that the central library in Grimsby is a convenient place for me to view these documents. Please confirm when you will be presenting them for examination as per the aforementioned Order.

 

Regards

 

 

Short and to the point, any opinions?

[vjohn82]

Head it CPR 31.3 so that there is no confusion over the rule you are requesting inspection under. If they fail to comply then it's another rule they have breached.