Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

[R0b]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

That's not what s.127(3) actually says, it refers to the time the account was opened.

I am happy to stand corrected and will admit there is a possibility that I could be wrong but the sub-section was copied directly from the legislation and as I say i was certain several cases confirmed this one way or another.

Fraud is taking this a little too far. :eek2: If this is an address where the OP did live at it would have been on record with the bank so it would be a mistake rather than fraud. Big difference there.

Quite the opposite - whether it sticks in court is another story but I have dealt with a few cases on similar to this in which fraud/contempt of court has been upheld.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

The agreement was for a Credit Card and from memory, I think this would have been a signed agreement, as I recall there was a promotion with the Card, fool me, although my financial position was more positive then.

However, the agreement they provided only relates to an address that was provided at a later date and not when the agreement would have been taken out

That's the important bit, how did you apply for the card? Was it in branch? Online? Over the phone? A mailshot? A magazine advert? Were they chasing your around Sainsbury's to take out the card? Did you go to the branch and they suggested you should have a card?

Just because you signed something it doesn't mean it would have had all the terms on there, as I said above, in many cases the terms were only sent with the card but only you'd know that. If that was the case, even if they do a recon of what those terms were, you'd still have an argument under s.127(3). :noidea:

[nemesis45]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Hello Flaming Parrot!

Thanks for the response.
The address shown on the credit agreement is not the original address when I opened the account..
Does this help my case..?

Dilema

Yes it does, it cannot be claimed that this document (recon) is a true copy of the original.

When confronted with such an error I write in response very simply. I refer to the " reconstituted " agreement provided on date, this document is refuted as non compliant for reasons that I am sure you are fully aware and therefore the alleged debt remains unenforceable.

nem

[dilema]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Thanks FB,

The card I recall was applied for at an Exhibition where they had a stand and promotion. The other point is the address shown on their recon copy is a c/o address, which changed at a later date for all correspondence to go to and actually an office address.

Dilema

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Thanks FB,

The card I recall was applied for at an Exhibition where they had a stand and promotion. The other point is the address shown on their recon copy is a c/o address, which changed at a later date for all correspondence to go to and actually an office address.

In that case, it's very likely you'd just have been required to fill in a short questionnaire/application form which may not have had all the terms as that was often the case with those promotions, however, I wasn't there only you can say whether that would have been the case.

Apart from the address, have you checked the recon they've sent you for any signs of hidden dates somewhere?

[dilema]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Thanks FB

Again from memory, it would have been a short application to apply for the card and then confirmation later whether my application had been successful/credit limited permitted. In which case this would have been followed by the card and terms/conditions. This is how I recall it, but of course it was quite sometime ago, pre 2007 and probably around 2005/06 or perhaps earlier.

I will check the recon more closely for any dates.

Dilema

[dilema]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

FB, when you refer to hidden dates, am I looking for a more recent date or date perhaps when the application would have been made..?

[nemesis45]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Thanks FB

Again from memory, it would have been a short application to apply for the card and then confirmation later whether my application had been successful/credit limited permitted. In which case this would have been followed by the card and terms/conditions. This is how I recall it, but of course it was quite sometime ago, pre 2007 and probably around 2005/06 or perhaps earlier.

I will check the recon more closely for any dates.

Dilema

On this type of application it was/is usual for a " booklet" to be supplied when the card is issued containing the terms and conditions.
Is the supplied with your recons?

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Thanks FB

Again from memory, it would have been a short application to apply for the card and then confirmation later whether my application had been successful/credit limited permitted. In which case this would have been followed by the card and terms/conditions. This is how I recall it, but of course it was quite sometime ago, pre 2007 and probably around 2005/06 or perhaps earlier.

That's a typical scenario that would fall under s.127(3) if the terms were not present at the time you signed the form. :whoo:

s.127(3) applies to accounts up to April 6th 2007. :grin:

I will check the recon more closely for any dates.

FB, when you refer to hidden dates, am I looking for a more recent date or date perhaps when the application would have been made..?

Yes, it's not uncommon for documents to have some references in headers or footers, often small print in the corners that read something like: "02/08" or something along those lines, suggesting they are using more recent terms that were not in place at the time you took out the card. Sometimes the terms themselves may mention a date within all the text so it's worth looking carefully.

[dilema]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Nem,

It seems to be just a copy of standard terms and conditions....Unfortunately I cannot recall if they provided a booklet when I originally made the application.
Dilema

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks FB....now need to find that magnifying glass! I will let you know how I get on.

Dilema

[nemesis45]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Nem,

It seems to be just a copy of standard terms and conditions....Unfortunately I cannot recall if they provided a booklet when I originally made the application.
Dilema

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks FB....now need to find that magnifying glass! I will let you know how I get on.

Dilema

Two distinct sets of Ts & C's received?
Check in the margins of the T;s& C's pages often there's " version " dates on them.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

It seems to be just a copy of standard terms and conditions....Unfortunately I cannot recall if they provided a booklet when I originally made the application.

Thanks FB....now need to find that magnifying glass! I will let you know how I get on.

It's a common ploy to try to fob people off by sending just random copies of T&Cs even when they're nothing to do with the account in question. :mmph:

The magnifying glass may well turn out to be an excellent investment! :lol:

[dilema]

Re: Dilema v Cabot Financial/Mortimer Clarke

Thanks Nem. I will check and update with more info later.

Dilema

[dilema]

Hello again forum!

It has been quite a while since I last wrote here, but it seems the saga continues and I would be grateful for more advice.

Basically all has been relatively quiet, but the creditor keeps periodically contacting (long periods). In short, after I last wrote I had still been requesting additional information to support their claim and all had gone quiet.

Then after approx. 18 months later I received another letter which contained additional information to support their claim! So this has now been going on for over 3 years, so I am unsure why it has taken so long to provide this information. Some initial questions just to recap over previous discussions and to clarify my position and the strength of their claim, as I feel it is lacking key information for it to stand up.

1). The address on the reconstituted agreement is a c/o address and not the original address the agreement would have taken out with. Does their claim fail here..?

2) The agreement/ T&C's provided with the incorrect address I would imagine are different to when the agreement was taken out, plus there is no date provided when the agreement was taken out.

3) The agreement was for a credit card and from memory was a promotion at an exhibition, so the information provided, again from memory, was a questionaire etc for them to determine whether I was eligible for a credit card. The card application would have been made quite a few years early than the c/o address was provided, possibly pre 2007, ie 2005/2006, difficult to exactly remember.

4) Now that they feel they have enough information to support their claim, they are now pushing for comment/payment (providing a statement of their account) and a response within a short time frame. Are they permitted to provide no information outling their course of action or a response to my letter requesting the information and then suddenly reappear after an 18 months silence...?
I had requested the information in 3 letters of correspondence, only to be presented with it now after more than 3 years of requesting it.

5) They have also provided copy statements showing the debt etc, however these are not on any headed paper, only my name and c/o address. In the footer area there is a small printed address, I presume the address of the original card provider! These statements could be anything in my opinion. These seem insufficient proof with no substance ...?


Awaiting your advice.

Dilema

[MIKE770]

when is this one statute barred?