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

[nemesis45]

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

Hello all,

I found a Template for the Defence I intend to Post tomorrow so the Court receives this on Tuesday 1st September.

Please can you have a look at the below?

I am happy with the Bits I have highlighted Green, and the Black Points I guess do not apply to me.

I would like some advice if at this point I should mention the main thing here being that I never had a agreement with Opus at all and was with Citi Card?

Also if I should mention I actually requested for the CCA and CPR twice?

Is there anything I should add additionally as well?

1: I received the claim XXXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court on 3^rd July 2015

2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case 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.

4: The Claimants Particulars of Claim fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.

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

6. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from [Original Creditor] to [Claimant] on [Date]. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

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.

8: On the 9^th July 20i5I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Mortimer Solicitors. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement and Notice of Assignment.

9. Mortimer Solicitors has not sent any of these documents to me.

10. On the 9^th July 2015 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

11. 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.

12: 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.

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. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 .............................................

Responding to PM's
OK Pos. nothing more to add?
If not good to go.
nem

[pt2537]

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

Im afraid i cant agree, the foundations of this case are awful, by lodging that defence A) you arent raising all of the issues and B) you are allowing the case to continue, which is wrong in my view.

This case is so obviously incapable of proof, that if it were a sick animal youd put it to sleep!!!!!

Personally, i wouldnt lodge the defence, id have been setting them up to strike them out, which i did on Cabot v Hayes, successfully too.

But then again youve gotta do what youve gotta do, however i fear you havent raised the key points which should be in the defence if your defending, such as how the Claimant can have standing if you never had an Opus account. Nemo dat quod non habet
which means one cannot sell what he does not own, in short if you only had an account with Citi, then only Citi can sell the account, so the pleaded case falls at the first hurdle surely???? and if so thats your best defence isnt it?

[nemesis45]

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

Im afraid i cant agree, the foundations of this case are awful, by lodging that defence A) you arent raising all of the issues and B) you are allowing the case to continue, which is wrong in my view.

This case is so obviously incapable of proof, that if it were a sick animal youd put it to sleep!!!!!

Personally, i wouldnt lodge the defence, id have been setting them up to strike them out, which i did on Cabot v Hayes, successfully too.

But then again youve gotta do what youve gotta do, however i fear you havent raised the key points which should be in the defence if your defending, such as how the Claimant can have standing if you never had an Opus account. Nemo dat quod non habet
which means one cannot sell what he does not own, in short if you only had an account with Citi, then only Citi can sell the account, so the pleaded case falls at the first hurdle surely???? and if so thats your best defence isnt it?

May I refer you to post#1 pt.

" This account was taken out at previous address"

nem

[Berniethebolt]

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

May I refer you to post#1 pt.

" This account was taken out at previous address"

nem

What has that got to do with anything.
If the account opened was not with OPUS the whole claim is wrong and that needs addressing as PT says.
I would think it pertinent to remember that PT does this for a living

[Pos1tive]

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

Hi @pt2537,

Thanks for the feedback. I am a little confused now.

Should I still submit the Defence.

Should I mention this was with Citi and not with OPUS?

I was going to mention these points:

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 having any such agreement with OPUS unless proved.

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.

Does this not cover what you suggest that I have never had a OPUS Account?

Is there any points I should make specifically?

Thanks Again

[Pos1tive]

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

My Defence at the moment: (Any feedback would be appreciated and how to include the fact a OPUS Credit Card was never owned and actually a CITI Was, which was sold to OPUS, whom then sold it to Cabot).

@PT2537, I'm trying to find your Hayes Vs Cabot Case as well? Can you point me in the right direction if it would help prepare my defence.
1: I, the Defendant have received the claim XXXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court on 3^rd 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 had an OPUS Credit Card.

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 disagrees 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 unless proved.

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.

8: On 9^th July 2015 and 6^th 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. The Defendant requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement and Notice of Assignment.

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

10. On the 9^th 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 of the original agreement on 25^th 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 gives the Defendant indication that Cabot Financial (UK) Limited are not organised enough to pursue a claim they have no knowledge of.

12. On the 27^th 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 5^th 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.”

After a second formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited were now apparently able to confirm there claim but leaves the question that that the Claim Form has the Claimant Details as “Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and NOT “Cabot Financial (Marlin) Limited”.

14. On 6^th August 2015 and 6^th 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.



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 .............................................

[Berniethebolt]

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

I think this is his blog on the issue
https://consumercreditlitigationandd...bot-financial/

It is certainly PT's blog that I would stake my life on.

Don't quote me but I think the defence needs to be a little more bullet pointed but [MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION] or [MENTION=2]Celestine[/MENTION] will I hope give you more info.
Sadly it is a BH weekend.

I know you can put your defence in online , without reading back I am not sure if you are having problems with that but if you can and the defence is due on Tuesday 1st it would give you a little more time.

[Berniethebolt]

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

By my calculation you have until 3rd to get your defence in
Date of service 2nd +5 days =6th +14 days to acknowledge=20th +14 days to defend=3rd Sept which is Thursday. ( I take the date of issue as day 1)

[MissFM]

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

I was going to mention these points:

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 having any such agreement with OPUS unless proved.

Hi Positive,

Hope you don't mind me chipping in as a non-expert (and if the experts disagree or it's otherwise unhelpful please ignore).

Just wanted to say that, to me, the two words highlighted in red above ("unless proved") strike a majorly bum note, like the proverbial tarantula on a slice of angelfood cake, and I don't think they should be there. x

[Pos1tive]

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

Thanks [MENTION=37303]MissFM[/MENTION]. Noted
[MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION] [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION]

Any advice on if I should menton the fact HI did have an account wth Citi, which was then sold to OPus without ymy knowledge and now Cabot are trying to claim on it?

Looking to submit my defence tomo online.

Any last minute feedback would be appreciated. And thanks again! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[nemesis45]

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

Thanks @MissFM. Noted
@pt2537 @FlamingParrot @nemesis45

Any advice on if I should menton the fact HI did have an account wth Citi, which was then sold to OPus without ymy knowledge and now Cabot are trying to claim on it?

Looking to submit my defence tomo online.

Any last minute feedback would be appreciated. And thanks again! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

If you had no knowledge of Opus being the successor to Citi then no, you do not acknowledge any liability to Opus and have had no contract with them.

[FlamingParrot]

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

Thanks @MissFM. Noted
@pt2537 @FlamingParrot @nemesis45

Any advice on if I should menton the fact HI did have an account wth Citi, which was then sold to OPus without ymy knowledge and now Cabot are trying to claim on it?

Looking to submit my defence tomo online.

Any last minute feedback would be appreciated. And thanks again! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

There is a paragraph that reads:

4: [It is admitted/denied] that the Defendant has [previously] entered into [an agreement/agreements] with [Original Creditor /Claimant] for provision of credit.

So he could say it is denied that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with Opus for provision of credit and he would be telling the truth because he never entered into any agreement with Opus, did he? It's not a question of selling it without his knowledge, it is the fact that their pleadings say he had an agreement with Opus which you did not, so they'll never be able to supply any documentary evidence of an agreement between him and Opus because it doesn't exist. The issue is not that Cabot are trying to claim it.

[pt2537]

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

Thanks @MissFM. Noted
@pt2537 @FlamingParrot @nemesis45

Any advice on if I should menton the fact HI did have an account wth Citi, which was then sold to OPus without ymy knowledge and now Cabot are trying to claim on it?

Looking to submit my defence tomo online.

Any last minute feedback would be appreciated. And thanks again! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Ok easiest way to do it, is print the Defence, sign the statement of truth, then scan it, and email it to the CCBCDefendants email addy on the Court service website.

The Hayes case isnt reported but i have blogged about it if i recall correctly.

What i would say is, you dont need to say that you had an account with X or Y, its NOT for you to do the Claimants job for them. The Claimant carries the burden of proving his case, he should plead his case correctly, if he doesnt then ITS HIS PROBLEM NOT YOURS. If a claimant fails to get his claim right then he cant prove it at trial thus when you turn up at trial and say well wheres your opus agreement and they say AHHHH ITS A CITI one oops sorry, then your position is simply well im here on the premise that its a opus agreement, your case is its opus thus your claim fails.

[FlamingParrot]

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

Ok easiest way to do it, is print the Defence, sign the statement of truth, then scan it, and email it to the CCBCDefendants email addy on the Court service website.

The Hayes case isnt reported but i have blogged about it if i recall correctly.

You did, here: https://consumercreditlitigationandd...bot-financial/ :yo:

....and I quoted it here: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...385#post558385 :grin:

[Pos1tive]

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

Hi [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION], good point, I will mention:

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