WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

[Celestine]

This morning a hearing took place at Lincoln County Court to set aside a statutory demand that was issued against Steve XX.

This was an interesting case as Steve XX did not recognise the name of the creditor, the account number, the amount and his name was spelled very incorrectly.

Cabot were unable to provide any documentation under a s.78 request......

Their solicitors Wright Hassall ignored my correspondence until a few days ahead of court when counsel had already been briefed and costs had become significant.

They then realised they were in trouble and offered to withdraw the demand but not pay any costs!! Cheeky!!

Naturally we declined and arrived at Court this morning with a very well prepared Tom Brennan representing Steve.

Apparently Tom barely had to speak! The Judge utterly demolished them and was scathing of their conduct of issuing a stat demand when there was no evidence the debt had ANYTHING to do with the man standing before him in court, yet undefended this could have caused his bankruptcy.

Cabot tried to get an adjournment to give them further time (beyond statutory deadlines) to seek evidence of the debt. The Judge rejected this proposal and slammed them with a LOSS and FULL Costs against Cabot for their appalling conduct towards my client.

I think we can call that a RESULT!!!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Like Lowells the Leeds Losers, Crapbot are using SDs to recover alleged debts where the lack of documents would mean they wouldn't stand a chance if they took the CCJ route. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

There is no fee to pay to issue a SD and sometimes they don't even pay a process server, I think Crapbot usually just send them by post.
Lovely to see Cel & Tom hitting them where it hurt$!

Another great result!

Time to get the bubbly out of the fridge!

[mystery1]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Just like printing money. Hope Andrew doesn't keep all the profits !!

M1

[Inca]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Well done Cel & Tom..and kudos to JudgeyDude.

[Celestine]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Todays fiasco cost Cabot £5000

And if Andrew nabs the profits, me and PT will either a/ go on strike b/ flatten him LOL
:whoo:

Cabot and their solicitors were positively nasty to deal with on this case, but the Judge stated our costs were conservative and extremely reasonable

[labman]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Another excellent result Cel, well done! A very appropriate name for a firm of solicitors.

[PlanB]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Todays fiasco cost Cabot £5000

. . . . the Judge stated our costs were conservative and extremely reasonable

The judge was right, so warn Cabot they'll be double that next time if they don't play ball earlier on in the proceedings layball:

Surely that £5k is only your client's costs with Watsons; I assume that Cabot will also have to pay their own solicitors Wright Hassall a similar amount on top for losing their case :lol:


Congratulations to Kate and Watsons for rescuing another victim from debt purchasers who use and abuse SDs and the legal system :high5: :high5: :high5:

[Celestine]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Yes that is just our costs including Toms fee. Lord knows what Wright Hassall charge, though its possibly not client specific? I suspect they have a general contract with the likes of Cabot paying a flat fee for handling XX cases per annum regardless of how complex the case becomes.

Sadly we can only reach a tiny percentage of consumers who receive dubious debt collection demands from the likes of Cabot/Wright Hassall. So I'm reasonably certain the whole practice is very profitable for them.

[enaid]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Not so much a result as a bloody good trouncing, love it.

[PlanB]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Sadly we can only reach a tiny percentage of consumers who receive dubious debt collection demands from the likes of Cabot/Wright Hassall. So I'm reasonably certain the whole practice is very profitable for them.

Ah but humiliation in court is priceless. I would love to have been a fly on the wall to see Wright Hassall get that dressing down from the judge :argue:

[QCKate]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Todays fiasco cost Cabot £5000

And if Andrew nabs the profits, me and PT will either a/ go on strike b/ flatten him LOL
:whoo:

Cabot and their solicitors were positively nasty to deal with on this case, but the Judge stated our costs were conservative and extremely reasonable

WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!! Well done all concerned!!!!


QCK

[FlamingParrot]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Sadly we can only reach a tiny percentage of consumers who receive dubious debt collection demands from the likes of Cabot/Wright Hassall. So I'm reasonably certain the whole practice is very profitable for them.

That has to change! :horn::director::director::director:

Unfortunately, many people's first step is the CAB, where, as can be seen on recent posts here, the usual answer is just to ask the debtor to pay up! :rant: The official debt charities aren't much better, I once saw a CCCS rep offer to set up a repayment plan for a SBd debt on another forum!

[labman]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

That has to change! :horn::director::director::director:

Unfortunately, many people's first step is the CAB, where, as can be seen on recent posts here, the usual answer is just to ask the debtor to pay up! :rant: The official debt charities aren't much better, I once saw a CCCS rep offer to set up a repayment plan for a SBd debt on another forum!

This is so very true. Stepchange and Payplan have a habit of recommending inappropriate solutions. CAB - well, usually good on benefits. The quality of advice varies massively from one advisor to another and the company is extremely aggressive in trying to destroy what they see as 'competition' rather than more good free help.

When it comes to SD's and things like this, they are frequently sadly out of their depth and end up giving totally inappropriate advice to their clients.

I guess the internet answer is making sure that as soon as anyone enters bankrpuptcy, insolvency, statutory demand etc... into google, LB appears as top of the list. How you do that, I haven't a clue, but I do know it is possible.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

This sees the issue of taking the insolvency (SD) route vs the trial (CCJ) route from the other side, showing how "well" it could work to scare people into paying: http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_...ry_demand.aspx :mad2: :rant:

serving a statutory demand on an individual

A demand is not “issued” at court and so there is no court fee to pay. A process server usually serves the demand personally on the debtor. The demand has a “WARNING” on the front of it stating that if the debtor does not “apply to set aside within 18 days or otherwise deal with this demand as set out in the notes within 21 days after its service” then the debtor “could be made bankrupt” and his “ property and goods taken away”.

The fact of personal service and the threat of property and goods being taken away usually provokes a response from the debtor, quite often leading to the debt being settled.

claim form or a statutory demand?

Serving a statutory demand seems quite attractive. It is relatively cheap since there is no court fee to pay (although you usually have to pay a process server) and a demand should alarm any sensible debtor into doing something about the debt.

If the demand does not prompt payment, then a petition, whilst more expensive, is likely to get a better result with its imminent threat of bankruptcy or winding up.

Note the use of SDs as scare-o-grams:

perhaps most importantly, you are trying to persuade the debtor to pay. Ultimately, you do not want a bankruptcy or a winding up order made against the debtor. If such an order is made, then the debtor’s assets will be sold and the proceeds on sale used to pay off the debtor’s debts and the costs of obtaining the bankruptcy order or winding up order. The debts and costs are paid in an order of priority set out by Insolvency legislation. You may therefore find yourself in a position where you have incurred significant expense to obtain the bankruptcy order or winding up order merely to become one of the many creditors of the debtor, waiting to see what can be realised from the debtor’s assets. Usually, little if anything, is recovered in such circumstances

conclusion

You should of course assess the recovery of each debt on its merits.
If you know that the debtor cannot dispute your claim and also that the debtor has sufficient assets to pay the debt, then you should consider using the Insolvency process. The debtor will wish to prevent a bankruptcy or winding up order being made but will have no real dispute to put forward to delay or prevent such an order. In such circumstances, the debtor will have no real option but to pay the debt.

Except for such cases, you will probably find it quicker and more cost effective to issue a claim form in the county court.

[CleverClogs]

Re: WON!! Cabot Financial v Steve XX

Their solicitors Wright Hassall ...

A very appropriate name for a firm of solicitors.

Bugger!

I was going to ask if it was another instance of nominative determinism. :grin: