CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

[pt2537]

Re: CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

Hi @FlamingParrot, good point, I will mention:

4: It is denied that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with OPUS for provision of credit.

It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with Opus. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of its allegations and requires the Claimant to produce the aforesaid agreement / contract which the Defendant is alleged to have agreed. The Defendant avers that the Claimants claim as pleaded is incapable of proof.

[Pos1tive]

Re: CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

Thanks [MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] - Your explanation has cleared all the doubts in my head as I kept on thinking I have to raise the fact of the Citi Card etc.

I think my Defence is good to go then as it is. I will print it, get my father to sign, Scan and email it.

I would like to say a Thank You for the support (Especially @pt2537 @FlamingParrot @nemesis45 :tinysmile_twink_t2:) you all have given me up to now - Don't know where I'd be without this site and the kind helpful and resourcesful people on it.

Will keep you all posted and fingers crossed all goes well

Just finally Posting my Defence on this thread one last time for any correctional feedback, and I'll get this printed in the next few hours:

1: I, the Defendant have received the claim XXXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court on 3rd July 2015.


2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants Particulars of Claim is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.


3: This claim appears to be for a OPUS Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant has never used let alone owned an OPUS Credit Card.


4: It is denied that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with OPUS for provision of credit.


5. The Claimants Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into and state’s “on or around 07/03/2008” which the Defendant denies as he has never had an OPUS Credit Card.


6. The Claimants Particulars of Claim state that the account was “By an agreement between OPUS CREDIT CARD (OPUS) & the Defendant” I, the Defendant deny ever having any such agreement with OPUS.


7. It is denied that OPUS 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 if an agreement existed.


8: On 9th July 2015, the Defendant sent a request (Signed for Delivery) for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors. The Defendant requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement and Notice of Assignment.


9. Mortimer Clarke Solicitors has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.


10. On the 9th July 2015, a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (Signed for Delivery) pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.


11. Cabot Financial (UK) Limited responded to the request (10 of the original agreement on 25th July 2015:


I acknowledge receipt of your request under sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; however I have been unable to locate the account under the details you have provided, as the reference number you have quoted does not match our records.


Therefore I respectfully request that you obtain the correct Cabot reference number and confirm any previous address we may hold for you and forward that information on to us in order for your request to be actioned.


Enc: £1 Postal Order"


This is indicative that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited have no knowledge of this claim to pursue.


12. On the 27th July 2015, a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (Signed for Delivery) pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee was sent again


13. On 5th August 2015, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited sent a letter to the defendant advising:


“I can confirm that the reference number you have provided relates to Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited and not our office, which is why I was unable to locate your account previously. I can confirm that I have now located your account and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by this delay.”


Why does the Claim Form have the Claimant Details as “Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and NOT “Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited”. Who is the real Claimant?


14. On 6th August 2015, the Defendant sent a request (Signed for Delivery) for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Mortimer Solicitors again. The Defendant requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement and Notice of Assignment again.


9. Again Mortimer Solicitors has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.


15. The Claimant has failed to comply with [s77 (1) / s 78 (1)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of [s77 (4) / s 78 (6)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.


16: The Parties agreed to an extension to the time period allowed for filing of my defence under CPR 15.5 to allow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation to evidence their claim, however they have failed to do so.


17. 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.


18. I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.


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


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


Statement of Truth


The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Signed …………………………………………


Dated .............................................

[pt2537]

Re: CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

Para 2, id add "I require the Claimant to prove each and every allegation as pleaded in its particulars of claim"

[Pos1tive]

Re: CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

@pt2537 Is Para 11. and 13. Correct - is it ok to quote from a letter from Cabot?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

Just finally Posting my Defence on this thread one last time for any correctional feedback, and I'll get this printed in the next few hours:

1: I, the Defendant have received the claim XXXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court on 3rd July 2015.

2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants Particulars of Claim is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

Add as per PT's post #78: "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 OPUS Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant has never used let alone owned an OPUS Credit Card.

4: It is denied that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with OPUS for provision of credit.

See PT's post #76 above:

It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with Opus. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of its allegations and requires the Claimant to produce the aforesaid agreement / contract which the Defendant is alleged to have agreed. The Defendant avers that the Claimants claim as pleaded is incapable of proof.

5. The Claimants Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into and state’s “on or around 07/03/2008” which the Defendant denies as he has never had an OPUS Credit Card.

6. The Claimants Particulars of Claim state that the account was “By an agreement between OPUS CREDIT CARD (OPUS) & the Defendant” I, the Defendant deny ever having any such agreement with OPUS.

7. It is denied that OPUS 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 if an agreement existed.

8: On 9th July 2015, the Defendant sent a request (Signed for Delivery) for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors. The Defendant requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement and Notice of Assignment.

9. Mortimer Clarke Solicitors has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.

10. On the 9th July 2015, a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (Signed for Delivery) pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

Leave just "section 78". (s.77 applies to loans, s.78 to credit cards)

11. Cabot Financial (UK) Limited responded to the request (10 of the original agreement on 25th July 2015:

I acknowledge receipt of your request under sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; however I have been unable to locate the account under the details you have provided, as the reference number you have quoted does not match our records.

Therefore I respectfully request that you obtain the correct Cabot reference number and confirm any previous address we may hold for you and forward that information on to us in order for your request to be actioned.

Enc: £1 Postal Order"

This is indicative that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited have no knowledge of this claim to pursue.

12. On the 27th July 2015, a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (Signed for Delivery) pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee was sent again

As above, just "section 78".

[QUOTE=Pos1tive;571728]
13. On 5th August 2015, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited sent a letter to the defendant advising:

“I can confirm that the reference number you have provided relates to Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited and not our office, which is why I was unable to locate your account previously. I can confirm that I have now located your account and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by this delay.”

Why does the Claim Form have the Claimant Details as “Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and NOT “Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited”. Who is the real Claimant?

Is this a question you're asking us or them?

15. The Claimant has failed to comply with [s77 (1) / s 78 (1)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of [s77 (4) / s 78 (6)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

Should be just "s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s.78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

[Pos1tive]

Re: CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

THanks for the feedbaqck [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION] - Updated as you said and took out all reference to s77.

Also where / at what point should I mention:

"It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with Opus. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of its allegations and requires the Claimant to produce the aforesaid agreement / contract which the Defendant is alleged to have agreed. The Defendant avers that the Claimants claim as pleaded is incapable of proof."

Also re.

[QUOTE=Pos1tive;571728]
13. On 5th August 2015, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited sent a letter to the defendant advising:

“I can confirm that the reference number you have provided relates to Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited and not our office, which is why I was unable to locate your account previously. I can confirm that I have now located your account and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by this delay.”

I am asking the the Court - or is this worded badly? What I am trying to say is the Claimant does'nt even know who the Claimant is is the Claim Form refers to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited but actual Claim is for Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited

[FlamingParrot]

Re: CCJ from Mortimer Clarke on behalf of Cabot (OPUS Credit Card Debt sold to them)

THanks for the feedbaqck @FlamingParrot - Updated as you said and took out all reference to s77.

Also where / at what point should I mention:

"It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with Opus. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of its allegations and requires the Claimant to produce the aforesaid agreement / contract which the Defendant is alleged to have agreed. The Defendant avers that the Claimants claim as pleaded is incapable of proof."

That paragraph should replace your current paragraph 4.

Also re.

13. On 5th August 2015, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited sent a letter to the defendant advising:

“I can confirm that the reference number you have provided relates to Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited and not our office, which is why I was unable to locate your account previously. I can confirm that I have now located your account and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by this delay.”

I am asking the the Court - or is this worded badly? What I am trying to say is the Claimant does'nt even know who the Claimant is is the Claim Form refers to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited but actual Claim is for Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited

Apologies for the broken quote, unfortunately due to site issues it's not always possible to edit my posts, with the post above I get just a blank box if I try to edit it.

A defence should contain assertions rather than questions, if it was me I'd leave that out unless I was sure there was any mileage in challenging the identity of the claimant. In this case it looks like there's much more mileage in the Opus angle.