** discontinued ** Statute Barred

[Amethyst]

Have you got a copy of your defence? ( can you paste it here pls - had a quick look at your other threads but can't see anything there )

[flintstonefreddie]

I have found a Vanquished file I put together when I was preparing my defence. I will list briefly the sender and the content of each letter.

1) 17 Feb 2011, Impact Collection Services, Balance 631.19 pounds, Payment Due 98.28 (payment outstanding, we are pursuing you for ammount due)

2) 18 March 2011, Vanquished Bank, Notice of Default, Account Balance 679.94 pounds, Payment Due 136.93 pounds ( please read this notice together with early termination and repayment section of your Vanquis credit card terms and conditions)

3) 11April 2011 Vanquis Bank account statement ( your account has been suspended, do not attempt to use your card you must pay 178 immediately to prevent legal action) Net arrears outstanding 136.93.pounds

4) 12 May 2011 Vanquis Bank Statement, New Balance 731.21 total payment 0, total credit 0, transactions payment option plan 9.43 pounds. ( your details have been passed to Moorcroft to recover the outstanding debt contact them directly)

5) 2 May 2011 Moorcroft, collect overdue debt 731.21 (it is a legal requirement to send a notice of intended litigation before legal proceedings, this letter fulfilled this requirement)

6) 18 May 2011 Moorcroft, Balance 731.21, important information possible litigation, this letter has costs culminating in Total debt if judgement is obtained 896.21 pounds.

7) 1 June 2011 Moorcroft, monthly instalment offer

8) 15 June 2011 Moorcroft, Home collections Division, balance 731.21 pounds, records show you have not made any payments to us, we will call to your house.

9) 12 June 2011 Vanquis Bank statement, Balance 750.19 pounds, no transactions

10 15 August 2011 Zinc, balance outstanding 731.21. After investigation we have established residency at your property. Agreement to a financial repayment programme or a considerably reduced settlement.
This is a genuine opportunity to deal with this situation once and for all.

[Amethyst]

Okay , that's helpful...don't know many people who'd still have all those letters So it looks like it defaulted in May 2011 then ( when they stopped asking for amounts to pay the arrears and bring the account up to date) so still over 6 years before Sept 2017. Can you do a pic of letter 2 please, that sounds like the default notice so check if it gives you at least 14 days to rectify before default. Moorcroft would have been acting FOR Vanquis ( do they refer to Vanquis as their client?) not sure who Zinc are tbh, possibly another Moorcroft type DCA, so it went round the houses a bit before they sold it on to Cabot.

Was you defence JUST statute barred or did you include CCA 1974 etc?

[flintstonefreddie]

1) I received the claim xxxxxxxx from County Court Business
Centre on 20th September 2017.

2) Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s statement of case
is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence. I require
the Claimant to prove each and every allegation as pleaded in its
Particulars of Claim.

3) This claim appears to be for a Credit card agreement regulated
under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

4) The Claimant’s statement of case fails to give adequate
information to enable me to properly assess my position with
regards to the claim.

5) The particulars of claim fail to state exactly when the
agreement was entered into.

6) The Claimant’s statement of case states that the account was
assigned from Vanquis Credit Card Account Number xxxxxxxxxx
to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. The Defendant does not recall
receiving notice of this assignment.

7) It is denied that Vanquis Credit Card served any Default
notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice
was served upon the Defendant.

8) On 27th September 2017 I sent a formal request by recorded
delivery for the inspection of documents mentioned in the
Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to
Wright Hassall LLP. I requested the Claimant provide copies of
the Credit Agreements, Notice of Assignment and Demands.

9) Wright Hassall LLP has not sent these documents to me.

10) On 27th September 2017 I sent a formal request by recorded
delivary for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot Financial
(UK) Limited pursuant to s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
along with the statutory £1 fee.

11) The Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer
Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974
cannot enforce the agreement.
12) I have asked the Claimant if they require an extention to
the time period allowed for filing of my defence pending receipt
of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), they have failed to
respond.
13) Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes
a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any
allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved
unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore It is
expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation
that the money is owed as claimed.
14) It is understood that the alleged debt falls under Section 5
of the Statute of Limitations Act 1980, in that I or any person
acting on my behalf have not paid any money to the account, nor
have I or any person acting on my behalf acknowledged in writing
this alleged debt.
15) Section 5 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1980 states the
time limit for actions founded on simple contract - An action
founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the
expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of
action accrued. It is my belief that 6 years has now passed since
any of the required actions occurred.
16) I believe that due to the above (Para 12 and 13) this alleged
debt is legally Barred.
17) The alleged debt is statute barred and cannot be enforced.

18) I request that the Court orders the Claimant to provide the
necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case or
else the Claim should stand struck out.

19) In the event that the relevant documents are received from
the Claimant I will then be in a position to amend my defence and
would ask that the Claimant bear the costs of the amendment.

20) It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as
claimed or any relief at all.

Statement of Truth:
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are
true.

[flintstonefreddie]

Hi this is letter 2 and yes Moorcroft refer to Vanquish as their client

[flintstonefreddie]

Letters to Cabot and Wright Has sell sent recorded delivery, no reply from Wright Hassell

[Amethyst]

Ok so the cause of action date could be argued to be april2011 so they are still out of time with September 2017

[Amethyst]

And your defence covers everything

[Amethyst]

So, thinking about a reply.... get others to go over this before sending as it may be too strong and sarcastic ... see what jaguarsuk thinks in any case - it may want softening - you don't want to piss them off too much.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Sirs,

Ref: Claim xxxxxxx CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LTD v FLINTSTONEFREDDIE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

I write with reference to your recent letter, dated xxxxxx2018, which I must confess leaves me somewhat bemused.

Your letter states that your client, CABOT FINANCIAL(UK)LTD, does not accept my defence and note that I have asserted that I consider the alleged debt to be Statute Barred pursuant to section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980.

You state that the original creditor, Vanquis, has informed your Client that a final payment of £30 was made on 30th November 2010. I am unable to verify this payment from my own records and the documents that your Client has provided to date does not include any breakdown or transactions list, nor a complete credit agreement or date of alleged default.

In any case, in your letter you quote part of section 29 of the Limitations Act, somewhat incorrectly and I assume this is ( mis ) quoted simply to confirm that the time period runs from last payment or acknowledgment.

For your reference Section 29(5) reads;

"(5)Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

(a)any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or

(b)any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment."

And is subject to subsection 6 which reads

"(6)A payment of a part of the rent or interest due at any time shall not extend the period for claiming the remainder then due, but any payment of interest shall be treated as a payment in respect of the principal debt."

In any event, my defence relies on Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980 which states;

"An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."

Your letter goes on to state that the "six year time period in this matter commenced on 30 November 2010" and that "any claim brought within six years to this will not be deemed statute barred".

You then correctly state that the "Claimant issued these proceedings on 15 September 2017". However, and this is where I am somewhat confused, you also stated that this date, 15 September 2017, is "within the six year Limitation Period and as a result you cannot rely on the defence of Limitation", which I am sure you realise, is plainly incorrect as the dates are 6 years, 9 months, 17 days apart. Therefore my defence that the alleged debt is statute barred remains valid.

Within your letter you enclose a copy of the alleged credit agreement ( which appears not have been correctly executed ) and a 'sample' copy of a default notice. I'd suggest your Client revisits the figures and dates given in their sample default notice for future claims. The Payment Due is higher than the Account Balance ( and therefore is not request payment of arrears in order to rectify a breach ), and the date by which payment is to be made before is actually before the date of the letter. I'm not certain what this 'sample' is evidence of, it certainly is not related to any account I have ever held.

Your letter goes on to state that my Defence does not " contain any valid reason for the protraction of this claim and we will be requesting the Court to strike out [my] Defence by making an Application for Summary Judgment". Please be aware that should your Client make any such application to the court it will be strongly contested.

Should your client discontinue their claim within 14 days from this letter I will undertake not ask the court to award my costs in dealing with the claim. However should they proceed I do intend to proceed with my defence in full, and will request the court awards costs against your client based on their unreasonable behaviour in proceeding.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards


xxxxx

[jaguarsuk]

Within your letter you enclose a copy of the alleged credit agreement ( which appears not have been correctly executed ) and a 'sample' copy of a default notice. I'd suggest your Client revisits the figures and dates given in their sample default notice for future claims. The Payment Due is higher than the Account Balance ( and therefore is not request payment of arrears in order to rectify a breach ), and the date by which payment is to be made before is actually before the date of the letter. I'm not certain what this 'sample' is evidence of, it certainly is not related to any account I have ever held.

I'm not the one for making things less strong and sarcastic plus love pissing off solicitors, so I'm pretty much fine with all of that

Get rid of this paragraph, why would we do their job for them and ensure they send compliant examples to future defendants? Let's just leave it out and let them make the mistake with someone else whom doesn't have any other valid defence that can then exploit this.

[MIKE770]

never correct these morons mistakes, let other people benefit by them - barrack room lawyers mess up other peoples lives bringing attention to errors

[flintstonefreddie]

Hi Amethyst, Jaguarsuk and Mike770

I would like to thank you for your help and input I would be lost without it.
I will amend the Amethyst letter in morning and post a copy so you can see it before I send it registered to them.
I will remove the paragraph as Juagarsuk has suggested.
Mike770 I think these companies are the lowest of the low bringing misery to ordinary people's lives and they should be challenged at every opportunity. I will certainly not assist them in helping them see their errors.
Thank you all again

[flintstonefreddie]

Hello this is what I propose to send to Wright Hassell, if everyone thinks it's ok.

Dear Sirs,

Ref: Claim xxxxxxx CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LTD v FLINTSTONEFREDDIE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

I write with reference to your recent letter, dated xxxxxx2018, which I must confess leaves me somewhat bemused.

Your letter states that your client, CABOT FINANCIAL(UK)LTD, does not accept my defence and note that I have asserted that I consider the alleged debt to be Statute Barred pursuant to section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980.

You state that the original creditor, Vanquis, has informed your Client that a final payment of £30 was made on 30th November 2010. I am unable to verify this payment from my own records and the documents that your Client has provided to date does not include any breakdown or transactions list, nor a complete credit agreement or date of alleged default.

In any case, in your letter you quote part of section 29 of the Limitations Act, somewhat incorrectly and I assume this is ( mis ) quoted simply to confirm that the time period runs from last payment or acknowledgment.

For your reference Section 29(5) reads;

"(5)Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

(a)any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or

(b)any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment."

And is subject to subsection 6 which reads
"(6)A payment of a part of the rent or interest due at any time shall not extend the period for claiming the remainder then due, but any payment of interest shall be treated as a payment in respect of the principal debt."

In any event, my defence relies on Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980 which states;
"An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."

Your letter goes on to state that the "six year time period in this matter commenced on 30 November 2010" and that "any claim brought within six years to this will not be deemed statute barred".

You then correctly state that the "Claimant issued these proceedings on 15 September 2017". However, and this is where I am somewhat confused, you also stated that this date, 15 September 2017, is "within the six year Limitation Period and as a result you cannot rely on the defence of Limitation", which I am sure you realise, is plainly incorrect as the dates are 6 years, 9 months, 17 days apart. Therefore my defence that the alleged debt is statute barred remains valid.

Your letter goes on to state that my Defence does not " contain any valid reason for the protraction of this claim and we will be requesting the Court to strike out [my] Defence by making an Application for Summary Judgment". Please be aware that should your Client make any such application to the court it will be strongly contested.

Should your client discontinue their claim within 14 days from this letter I will undertake not ask the court to award my costs in dealing with the claim. However should they proceed I do intend to proceed with my defence in full, and will request the court awards costs against your client based on their unreasonable behaviour in proceeding.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards


xxxxx

[flintstonefreddie]

Hi Everybody, thank you again for your help. I have received a Notice of Discontinuance from Wright Has sell.

[Amethyst]

Whoop whoop !!! Congratulations!!!