Mortimer Clarke Solicitors Claim issued

[j4mes]

The letter of claim may have been the letter that was misplaced that you replied to on the 18th. Do you recall if the letter had a reply form with it?

Hi Amethyst, no this letter was the one I refer to in post 10 and had no reply form with it.

thanks

[j4mes]

Reply today from Cabot. They don't have agreement so asking original creditor for it. Will update within 12 days

[j4mes]

Another update, a response to cpr 31.14 from MCS. I’ll post up their response. Image is too big so will type their response;

dead Miss X,

we acknowledge your request for documentation pursuant to CPR 31.14

CPR 31.14 relates to a right to inspect a document and can be distinguished from standard disclosure of evidence during the course of proceedings.

we believe that you may have already “inspected” the documents to which you make reference because on various dates in the past they would have been sent to you by another party such as the original creditor.

we would be grateful if you could confirm what documents you have in your possession or control relating to this matter to avoid duplication over document inspection. We will then take our clients instructions.

[MIKE770]

usual response they are right BUT they can be made to disclose later in proceedings = keep that letter with court documents for reference if needed, you confirm nothing they know the rules, sit on your hands and ignore their request/ honestly time the populous got up and faught these companies rrgh

[j4mes]

Mike can anything further happen if Cabot are chasing documents?

[MIKE770]

should not without you knowing

[j4mes]

So leave MCS alone? No response to say got nothing that I requested from them and remind them Cabot are chasing some paperwork themselves?

[Amethyst]

You do need to enter your defence. It's due by Monday I believe?

Example Defence

[j4mes]

On it Amethyst. Will be submitted tomorrow ready for Monday

[Amethyst]

Nice one, well feel free to post a draft if you want a hand/check over etc - don't forget to edit it to suit the relevant circumstances ( you'd be surprised how many people file a defence full of square brackets and 'options' still in it )

[j4mes]

In the [Northampton County Court Business Centre]

Claim No: [XXXXX]

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited

Claimant

And

Miss X

Defendant

DEFENCE

1.The Defendant received the claim [Claim Number] from the Northampton County Court on 27th October 2018

2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3.This claim is for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

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

5.The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.

6.The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim states the agreement was entered into on or around 17/08/2015

7.The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Aquacard to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

9.It is denied that Aquacard 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. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.

10. The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment.

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

12.The Defendant sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Cabot Financial (UK) Limited pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

13.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.

14. The Defendant have asked the Claimant if we may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of the defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but they have declined.

15.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.

16.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

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

18.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 ________________________________

[j4mes]

Was this ok?

[Amethyst]

So sorry J4mes , missed your post - it looks absolutely fine tho I'd have removed the square brackets in 12 & 13 it's not fatal Have you submitted ? If not there's a couple minor edits we could make.

[j4mes]

Not yet submitted no

[j4mes]

Just to update

Cabot could not provide requested CCA documents so have stopped further action and wish to set up a payment plan. I’ve suggested she offers £1 a month initially as they’ve been awkward, so no reason we cannot. She’s not interested in ignoring them, against my advice, so that seems the next logical step. I think it’s the threat of a CCJ that’s most worrying for her as she’s planning on going to university