Cabot Claim Form - DISCONTINUED !!!

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

So loan is £87.42 a month and PPI is £20.63 a month - total monthly payment £108.05 on the APR 7.9% (take rounding to pence into account and its pretty spot on) so if you were reclaiming the entire PPI after the end of the contract you;d be reclaiming the £1180 plus interest of £242 (plus your 8% pa stat interest on each payment made).

Makes sense to me I think you maybe are thinking in terms of having paid the PPI all upfront, which you didnt, it was loaned to you on same terms as the loan.

I'm crap at maths btw. But to get the APR at 16% you;d be ignoring that any interest was charged on the amount loaned for the PPI.


Until the PPI is reclaimed it stands as a debt, although it is a disputed part of the debt, and one which you should defend on this claim from Cabot - so basically defending that £1180 + £242 + stat interest on actual payments made. If there were no claim then EGG would simply refund that PPI refund to the account thus reducing the amount cabot claim off you. Make sense I think lol.

[militantconsumer]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

In our case we complained about the PPI and they refunded a substantial amount within a week (no calculation supplied but it looked about right) and then promptly sued us for the remaining balance!

Does the Slater case actually cover these loans? I thought it was only about Egg cards and the dodgy credit limit/approved limit/etc arguments.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
A creditor cannot sue a debtor simply saying 'you had money now pay it back'. Consumer Credit is a highly regulated area and any successful case has to be based on some kind of agreement, whether or not it's a reconstructed one.

I don't think there is anything wrong with these Egg loans where no PPI has been added, and I have seen a few of them. With all the Egg agreements they do seem to state the prescribed terms - the monthly payments are there, the APR of the loan is always right, etc, etc.

But for the ones that DO have PPI added, the issue is whether section 18 of CCA really does make this a 'multiple agreement', in which case there would be a failure to state the prescribed terms a la Wilson -v- County Trust. Because the agreement clearly does not tell us how much of the monthly payments are for PPI and how much for paying off the loan, even if the APR for both is the same and you could work it out with a spreadsheet. So if it's two agreements, there should be two sets of prescribed terms, and there ain't.

All the other points about cancellation and so on will not help you because they are just technicalities but not things that make the agreement unenforceable.

The other confusion lies in the fact that the rules changed and all agreements had to suddenly be split down the middle for cash loan / PPI premiums. I forget exactly what year that happened, but it was definitely changed after our own agreement in 2004 and probably also after your agreement from 2005.

But that is not the same thing as CCA 1974 and enforceability under the Wilson case, which is simply: was there a failure to state the prescribed terms or not?

We are never going to know which is the right answer for these Egg agreements with PPI added until somebody uses the arguments in court. But I completely agree with Amethyst that nobody should take a big financial risk for the 'common good'.

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

As far as I can see from the agreement provided, there is only a single clause on the T&C which mentions the PPI and that refers to a separate set of T&C which haven't been provided.

whether it falls under the terms of multiple agreements I really don't know, but even the common sense argument rather than the technical one would dictate that there would need to be some kind of specific consent to taking the PPI displayed on the agreement (checkbox or signature), or them applying the ppi to the agreement and similarly a right to cancel.

If there is legislation which states that a secondary agreement must exist to cover such an inclusion of, then IMHO it's probably just another thing the DCA's will be in denial over and another thing that the bog standard DJ will overlook when awarding the CCJ

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

This is my first attempt at a defence, any comments and opinions would be greatly appreciated

I, xxxxx xxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Cabot (UK) Ltd
The Claimant states in their Particulars of Claim that a Loan with the Reference of 123456 is the basis of their claiming from the defendant the sum of £50xx.xx
The Defendant denies all allegations made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim in their entirety and puts the Claimant to strict proof thereof.
The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim, inter alia:
The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16.
In this regard the Defendant wishes to draw the Court’s attention to the following:


a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or preceding the alleged cause of action.

b) No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim.

c) No particulars are offered in relation to the method the claimant has used to calculate any outstanding sums due, nor the nature and scope of any charges contained within the figure claimed, nor any default notices issued for the Claimant to have a legitimate right of action under the purported written Agreement or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim.

d) No copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has been served attached to the claim form.

e) No copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has been served attached to the claim form.

f) The amount stated on the claim includes an amount of PPI which is confirmed on the alleged documentation supplied by the claimant as well as interest applied on this amount, yet it does not demonstrate how, when or where the PPI has been agreed to or signed for, nor does it include any terms and conditions for this amount - therefore the accuracy of the amount stated in the claim is doubted and the defendant places the claimant under strict proof on the accuracy of the amount claimed.

g) The claimant states in their letter dated xx October xxxx that they have bought the account and the Claimants solicitors alson state in their letter dated xx August xxxx that they have purchased the debt in an absolute assignment yet the the letter before action received from the clients solicitors on xx July xxxx states that Egg is the creditor and not Cabot, yet the named creditor has not joined in this claim.

h) Furthermore the Claimant has to date failed to provide the Defendant with any legitimate evidence to substantiates their claim of ownership.

i) In the Particulars of Claim Interest is claimed under s69 County Courts Act 1984. Yet it clearly states in S69 County Courts Act (4) that “Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs” Neither is there within the Terms and Conditions of the alleged agreement is there an allowance to apply such an amount of interest to this account after termination.

j) Consequently due to the Claimants failure to supply the documents required under the Civil Procedure Rules and the fact that the Claimant has failed to sufficiently particularise the claim I deny all allegations in Particulars of Claim that I am indebted to the Claimant in any way and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.
The build up to this action

On the xx October xxxx I received a letter from Cabot stating that they had bought an account from Egg Bank identified in the letter by a Cabot reference of 123456 and an alleged account number of abcdefg In the same envelope there was also a copy of a letter allegedly from Egg and bearing the Egg logo, but clearly created by the same hand as the letter received from Cabot, this letter also referred to the account number abcdefg. I wrote to Cabot advising of an existing dispute over an account with Egg bank and sought clarification via documentary verification of their claim of ownership and requested a copy of the Credit Agreement pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Cabot responded on the 11th November 2009 by providing an alleged agreement which did not contain the account number abcdefg but onto which the number 123456 had been hand written. The alleged agreement did not contain all of the required prescribed terms required under statute and precedent and as the front page differed significantly from the signature page in both form and content, I doubted the authenticity of this document.
I wrote to Cabot stating that the references on the alleged agreement did not correspond with those in their communications and that the letter purporting to come from Egg bank had clearly been created by themselves in breach of s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925
I also advised Cabot that the documentation supplied did not comply with the requirements of the CCA 1974 and that as it stood the document was not an enforceable credit agreement and further requested that they supply the required documents. Cabot wrote back claiming the document supplied was a valid Consumer Credit Agreement under the 1974 Act and that the Letter dated xx October xxxx was in fact a Notice of assignment.
Between the dates xx December xxxx and the xx June xxxx I requested on no less than five occasions that Cabot substantiate their claims of ownership of this account and that they provide legitimate documentary proof of such ownership.
On xx July xxxx I received a letter from Morgan solicitors advising me of their intention to litigate. Shortly afterwards I received the court claim form.

The Request For Disclosure
Further to the case, on the xx August xxxxI requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the CPR 31.14 and CPR part 18 which is vital to this case from the claimant , The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim and any Default or Termination Notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any Default Notices or Termination Notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.
The claimant has replied by providing the Defendant with a copy of the same document as stated in point x, the reference as stated in the Particulars of Claim was again hand written on the signature page of the documentation provided. An alleged redacted copy of the Deed of assignment was supplied from which it is impossible to determine anything of merit and which cannot be in any way connected to either the Defendant , not to the alleged agreement as provided by the Claimant, A redacted account history was also provided, but this again serves no purpose in confirming the claimants cause for action or right to bring such action.
Conclusion
The overriding objective in CPR 1.1(2) requires the court to, as far as possible, place the parties on an equal footing. The fact that the Claimants have in their possession a document which is determinative of one the major issues as between the parties should in my submission require disclosure to enable the Defendant to form a view as to whether there has been a lawful assignment. It is with respect the position that not only do the interests of justice require disclosure but that the Claimant cannot prove its case without producing the alleged Deed of Assignment to the Defendant. If, which is not admitted, there was an agreement, enforceable or otherwise, in existence the Claimant has not proved that there has been a lawful assignment.
Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to assess if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974

In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16.

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Think this contradicts itself ?

i) In the Particulars of Claim Interest is claimed under s69 County Courts Act 1984. Yet it clearly states in S69 County Courts Act (4) that “Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs”

Neither is there within the Terms and Conditions of the alleged agreement is there an allowance to apply such an amount of interest to this account after termination.

first bit you are saying the cant charge you s69 interest because interest is already running on the debt, second bit you seem to be saying that interest isnt already running because its terminated and theres no terms to say it can ?



Also, minor thing, but have you numbered paragraphs ?

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Think this contradicts itself ?




first bit you are saying the cant charge you s69 interest because interest is already running on the debt, second bit you seem to be saying that interest isnt already running because its terminated and theres no terms to say it can ?


Thought I'd cover both ends, if the account is still "live" then there is statute to prevent application of interest, if they try to say that it's been terminated then they would need to prove that they have a right to apply interest

better one or the other?


Also, minor thing, but have you numbered paragraphs ?

Not yet, but will do before I post final version

cheers for the comments

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Think the point you are making is they cant charge both at the same time and its unclear whether the accounts terminated or so you are unable to argue the point one way or t'other, basically. Then it fits in with the embarrased type defence too.

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Think the point you are making is they cant charge both at the same time and its unclear whether the accounts terminated or so you are unable to argue the point one way or t'other, basically. Then it fits in with the embarrased type defence too.

That's the way I was trying to play it, "no matter waht their argument is they can't apply interest to the account", perhaps I should elaborate a little on that point
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
a) In the Particulars of Claim, Interest is claimed under s69 County Courts Act 1984. Yet it clearly states in S69 County Courts Act (4) that “Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs” and since within the Terms and Conditions of the alleged agreement there is no allowance to apply such an amount of interest to this account after termination, it is therefore unclear on what basis this claim for interest is made.

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

This time with paragraphs numbered and minor amendments to content

1. I, xxxxx xxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Cabot (UK) Ltd

2. The Claimant states in their Particulars of Claim that a Loan with the Reference of 123456 is the basis of their claiming from the defendant the sum of £50xx.xx

3. The Defendant denies all allegations made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim in their entirety and puts the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

4. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim, inter alia:

5. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16.

6. In this regard the Defendant wishes to draw the Court’s attention to the following:


a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or preceding the alleged cause of action.

b) No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim.

c) No particulars are offered in relation to the method the claimant has used to calculate any outstanding sums due, nor the nature and scope of any charges contained within the figure claimed, nor any default notices issued for the Claimant to have a legitimate right of action under the purported written Agreement or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim.

d) No copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has been served attached to the claim form.

e) No copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has been served attached to the claim form.

f) The amount stated on the claim appears to include an amount of Loan Protection Insurance which is confirmed on the documentation supplied by the claimant ,as well as interest applied on this amount, yet the documentation does not demonstrate how, when or where the PPI was agreed to or signed for, nor does it include any terms and conditions for this amount - therefore the accuracy of the amount stated in the claim is doubted and the defendant places the claimant under strict proof on the accuracy of the amount claimed.

g) The claimant states in a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx that they “bought” the account. The Claimants solicitor also state in a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx that they own the debt due to an absolute assignment, yet in the letter before action received on xx/xx/xxxx clearly states that Egg is the creditor, yet the named creditor has not joined in this claim.

h) Furthermore the Claimant has to date failed to provide the Defendant with any legitimate evidence to substantiates their claim of ownership.

i) In the Particulars of Claim, Interest is claimed under s69 County Courts Act 1984. Yet it clearly states in S69 County Courts Act (4) that “Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs” and since within the Terms and Conditions of the documentation provided there is no provision to apply such interest to this account after termination, it is therefore unclear on what basis this claim is made.

j) Consequently due to the Claimants failure to supply the documents required under the Civil Procedure Rules and the fact that the Claimant has failed to sufficiently particularise the claim I deny all allegations in Particulars of Claim that I am indebted to the Claimant in any way and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

The build up to this action
7. On the xx/xx/xxxx I received a letter from Cabot stating that they had bought an account from Egg Bank identified in the letter by a Cabot reference of 123456 and an alleged account number of abcdefg. In the same envelope there was also a copy of a letter allegedly from Egg and bearing the Egg logo, but clearly created by the same hand as the letter received from Cabot, this letter also referred to the account number abcdefg. I wrote to Cabot advising of an existing dispute over an account with Egg bank and sought clarification via documentary verification of their claim of ownership and requested a copy of the Credit Agreement pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

8. Cabot responded on the xx/xx/xxxx by providing an alleged agreement which did not contain the account number abcdefg but onto which the number 123456 had been hand written. The alleged agreement did not contain all of the required prescribed terms required under statute and precedent and as the front page differed significantly from the signature page in both form and content, I doubted the authenticity of this document.

9. I wrote to Cabot stating that the references on the alleged agreement did not correspond with those in their communications and that the letter purporting to come from Egg bank had clearly been created by themselves in breach of s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

10. I also advised Cabot that the documentation supplied did not comply with the requirements of the CCA 1974 and that as it stood the document was not an enforceable credit agreement and further requested that they supply the required documents. Cabot wrote back claiming the document supplied was a valid Consumer Credit Agreement under the 1974 Act and that the Letter dated xx/xx/xxxx was in fact a Notice of assignment.

11. Between the dates xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxxx I requested on no less than five occasions that Cabot substantiate their claims of ownership of this account and that they provide legitimate documentary proof of such ownership and liability


12. On xx/xx/xxxx I received a letter from Morgan solicitors advising me of their intention to litigate. Shortly afterwards I received the court claim form.

The Request For Disclosure

13. Further to the case, on the xx/xx/xxxx I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the CPR 31.14 and CPR part 18 which is vital to this case from the claimant , The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim and any Default or Termination Notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made to the original creditor and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on.

14. The claimant has replied by providing the Defendant with a copy of the same document as stated in point 8, the reference as stated in the Particulars of Claim was again hand written on the signature page of this document. A redacted copy of the alleged Deed of Assignment was supplied with no information visible. A redacted account history was also provided which serves no purpose in confirming the claimants claims

Conclusion

15. The overriding objective in CPR 1.1(2) requires the court to, as far as possible, place the parties on an equal footing. The fact that the Claimants have in their possession a document which is determinative of one the major issues as between the parties should in my submission require disclosure to enable the Defendant to form a view as to whether there has been a lawful assignment. It is with respect the position that not only do the interests of justice require disclosure but that the Claimant cannot prove its case without producing the alleged Deed of Assignment to the Defendant. If, which is not admitted, there was an agreement, enforceable or otherwise, in existence the Claimant has not proved that there has been a lawful assignment.

16. Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to assess if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974

In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

anyone?

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Right my defence is gone.

Avoided legal arguments and stuck to the basics.

They are bringin a claim using their own ref so they will never be able to produce any documentation in support of their claim, nothing could ever match or be linkable with their POC.
The assignment may or may not have happened, they've provided no proof
The amount could be a made up amount, no breakdown of the amount, no explanation re charges, or PPI, no statements no nothing.

They haven't produced a relevant cause for claim, nor any proof they have a right to make a claim.

I had to defend against their docs even though not directly stated in the POC, but even if they amend the POC, the docs will be the same ones and contain no link to their clai

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

It now looks like we have another complication with this one.

It looks like Egg are upholding my complaint re the PPI element on the agreement being missold and are proposing to settle by refunding (quite a bit more than I thought)

Does this not also mean that they are undermining Cabots claim by supplying proof that the amount on the claim form cannot be accurate?

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Well thats good news.

Have they said how they propose to refund you ?

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

I believe they wanted to transfer straight into my bank, but I have asked for a cheque, I was a little wary of their habit of paying it to the dca but it seems like I am getting it myself :o)

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Right we have moved on a little with this one.

Over the last few days Egg have confirmed that they wish to offer a full and final settlement in respect of the PPI attached to this account. obviously their claim includes both the ppi and interest, they will be making this payment by cheque directly to myself

The agreement they are relying on as well as having a different number to that on the claim form includes the ppi and insurance.

The removal of the PPI from the account surely cobbles Cabots claim with respect to amounts claimed, APRs and the like?

I have just heard that I have received the Allocation Questionnaire for this case and will obviously post further when I get home