Cabot Claim Form - DISCONTINUED !!!

[MandM]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

well done. You need to leave yourself some time to sort out your defence once you've had the docs. Try this.............

Date


Dear Sir/Madam


Re: Nasty Debt Chaps -v- Spamheed - AAA12345


I am the defendant in the above case.

I write to confirm that we have reached agreement to an extension of time of up to 28 days. This is to enable the Claimant to locate and provide documentation requested under CPR 31.14.

Furthermore, the Claimant has agreed to grant me a further 14 days thereafter to submit my defence.

I trust that the court is in agreement to this.

I enclose a copy of my letter dated 7th August 10 and a copy of the response and agreement received from Dirt Bag & Co Solicitors dated 10th August 10.

I thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.


Yours faithfully



Spamheed

M

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Right I've just been in touch with the courts and have been informed that any extension must be via a consent order and even with this in place, there is nothing concrete to stop Cabot from going for the default after the intial defence date.

So I need to formulate a defence on their POC and get it in by the initial date 1st September.

I would appreciate a little assistance with this.

Although an embarrassed defence allows me to amend it later, I would rather destroy their POC and leave them nowhere to go without repleading

Opinions would be welcome

[MandM]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

mmm. Seems a little strange. Are they forgetting CPR 15.5?

Agreement extending the period for filing a defence

15.5

(1) The defendant and the claimant may agree that the period for filing a defence specified in rule 15.4 shall be extended by up to 28 days.

(2) Where the defendant and the claimant agree to extend the period for filing a defence, the defendant must notify the court in writing.


Have done this myself a couple of times now without a problem.

M

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

So did Egg only keep the signature page on file and recnstructed the rest ? I would think a reconstruction should at least show the amounts. It has the interest rate on but seems about it.

No help, sorry, I'm just wondering how they can sue on the back of you having signed some terms for a 0.00 loan.

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

That would make logical sense, however Cabot are claiming on their own Loan Ref rather than anything signed by me or Egg.

I cannot see how they can claim for an account that
a. I didn't sign or agree to and
b. didn't exist until they "bought" it

None of the NOA, DOA or sale paperwork could ever show that they bought or had assigned to them the account they are claiming against. rather if they have anything it would refer to a completely different account/loan ref

or am i thinking too hard?!?!?

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Do they quote the Egg loan ref - is it on the copy agreement or anything ? or is it only the Cabot ref ?

You could have numerous loans with egg that have defaulted of similar amounts so how are you to know which one if they dont claim on the right loan ref. (obv its likely you only have the one egg loan and know full well which ref they are refering to (being devils advocate again sorry )

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

to try and make this less complicated.

The agreement has a ref of 12345 on it (which is part of the agreement)
Cabot have handwritten abcde on it
the egg letters refer to ref xyz (which was typed by Egg)
the cabot morgan letters refer to account number 999999

the Cabot Reference has been hand written on the agreement (which has a completely different ref of its own) and has also been handwritten on the front page of Eggs reply re their CCA request (which has a completely different ref from the agreement).

The pre litigation letters from Cabot and Egg referred to a different account number which is different from the number on the agreement and also different from the ref stated on the egg letter and the POC

Morgan have stated in writing that Cabot apply their own ref to any agreement basically what they are saying is that since we have bought account XYZ, it shall now be known as account ABC - and it is this ref (ABC) they have referred to in their POC. I thought the burden of proof was against them when it came to their POC?

But since this ref is not the number of an agreement I have ever entered into how can I have defaulted against the T&C of it, or be liable for amounts outstanding against it?

For the record, I have also previously had an Egg CC account and still have an Egg savings account with coppers in it.

I have been previously informed on another forum that as long as the link between the documents is clear then they are allowed to use whatever ref they want.

But surely if this were true, there would be nothing to stop them from simply writing whatever number they want on any document and claiming it is linked to the agreement in the same way they have hand written on the agreement and Egg letter?

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Yep I can see that, if the link between the ref's is clear and there is a paper trail - like the morgan letter - then I couldnt see a court going against it just on a reference number, especially as you aren't disputing that you have a debt with Egg. If you were then I would expect the Judge to be stricter on speciifcs like reference numbers and papertrails. Ie. If they tried to claim again on same debt under different ref number, your defence would be that you dont owe it etc thus they would have to prove you do.

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

I know i have to defend against this and the best advice I have had to date was to keep it short and sweet and only defend against what is in the POC. don't go into song and verse about what breaches etc unless they are completely relevant

The POC only mentions

The NOA - created by Cabot and not "by the hand of the assignor" - proveable

The Cabot Ref - is not the ref for any agreement I have ever entered into and not consistent with the documentation received, ie the only link is where this ref is hand written - nothing from Egg to confirm this ref, or the sale

the outstanding amount - unsubstantiated, different from amount claimed by earlier DCA and Egg themselves

interest claimed - account is CCA account - therefore interest has already been applied, have not received statements so account deemed to be terminated.

Cannot really mention copy of alleged agreement received coz it has different ref/account number and isn't mentioned in POC

Cannot mention redacted DOA received in response to my part 18 request - contains nothing to link account to me and isn't mentioned in POC

Cannot mention alleged account history as it contains nothing to link account to me and isn't mentioned in POC

Is my thiking along the correct path?

[militantconsumer]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Hi Spamhead

We are being sued directly by Egg with a very similar agreement.

Over on the CAG forum, PT started a long thread about 'Multiple agreements'. The basic idea was that an agreement containing both "restricted use" credit (e.g. PPI paid direct to an insurance company) and "unrestricted use" credit (cash loan) is in reality 2 separate agreements and should have the prescribed terms listed out separately for each element. This is stated in section 18 of CCA 1974.

The Egg loan agreements from this period do not do that. To look at your or my agreement a lay person would probably assume that interest was only being charged on the loan, not the PPI. This is the very misleading result of not separately listing out the prescribed terms on a front-loaded PPI policy from the principal loan.

Obviously with a pre-2007 agreement then a failure to list out the prescribed terms would render the agreement unenforceable (s65 and s127 I think).

A few very experienced posters (PT, josie and others) stated that they felt our agreement was unenforceable for these reasons.

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

The problem lies with the fact that they haven't actually mentioned THAT agreement in their POC's, they've instead used their own reference. Not sure if they are trying to divert attention from the agreement or not because they have nothing that links their claim to THAT agreement, would my defending against THAT agreement actually validate their claim?

as it stands, THAT agreement is full of holes and not only breaches:


18.Multiple agreements.

—(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement ”) if its terms are such as—

(a)To place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or

(b)To place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned.

(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement.]

but also matches exactly the precedent cited in Wilson vs First County Trust 1, where an amount was added to the total loan rather than the cost of credit

The appeal was heard in November 2000, shortly after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sir Andrew Morritt V-C, and Chadwick and Rix LJJ, allowed Mrs Wilson's appeal: see [2001] QB 407. Sir Andrew Morritt V-C recognised there was considerable force in First County Trust's submissions in support of the judge's view. But having analysed the statutory provisions, the court held that the £250 added to the loan to enable Mrs Wilson to pay the document fee was not 'credit' for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act. So one of the prescribed terms was not correctly stated. In consequence the agreement was unenforceable. So also was the security. First County Trust was ordered to repay the amount of £6,900 Mrs Wilson had paid the company after Judge Hull's judgment together with interest amounting to £662. The overall result was that Mrs Wilson was entitled to keep the amount of her loan, pay no interest and recover her car.

obviously you also have the fact that the signature page is not only separate from both the financial details and the T&C but also has a completely different form, appearance and content to them.

there is no right to cancel on what is a cancellable agreement

The NOA was created by cabot

The DOA has nothing to identify anything

My problem as I see it is, do I defend only their POC, or do I defend against everything they have supplied, or do I simply submit an embarrassed defence and see what they come back with.

I am fairly confident that this is a simple phishing trip and they will amend their POC once they see my defence


....and yes I know that they cannot do this, but I also know that they get away with it

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Ref the total credit amounts - the loan amount is stated seperately from the PPI amount. The PPI isnt a charge for credit unless its obligatory, which it isnt. They should under the CCA list the Loan loan amount + interest rate + monthly payments + total payments and seperately list the PPI loan amount + interest rate + monthly payments + total payments, then have a seperate add them both together box.....ie yes its a mulitple agreement but the boundries are blurry rather than clear cut, ..... but it isnt a straight forward case where a cost of credit amount (broker fee/document fee or something) or a deposit payment even were included in the total credit box (like Wilson).

Shame the Slater v Egg Judgment hasnt been handed down yet as that would seriously guide you on this. Can you not ask for a stay on the back of that as its same issues you are thinking of arguing ? Would mean a formal N244 appli tho and its high court so will be precedent setting ?

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

I really don't know Ame, this is where I flounder, I know the issues, but am unsure of which way to go and the implications of choosing the wrong way

With regard to the PPI included in the total loan amount, there is nowhere on that agreement itself to cancel or accept the PPI, whether by checkbox or signature nor any phrase such as "optional insurance" Cabot can offer no proof that the PPI was requested or wanted, so in the absence of any application document which contains such a method of agreement to the PPI it can only be assumed that the PPI was a precondition of the loan.

The interest as stated on the agreement is 7.9%, however this is including the PPI amount, effectively this means that an amount of loan/credit was taken out and then interest was applied solely, in order to offer protection to the loan and the interest, this one point alone seems bizarre.

If the PPI amount is removed from the loan amount, the the APR is over 16% and as such (another) precribed term is mis-stated

In many ways the logical side of me would like to pick each point they have raised either in their POC or in the so called documents that they've provided and argue them all, however I can see this being fraught and if I miss something, or don't fully understand something I could end up with a default and then the grief of trying to get a repayment plan which is workable, not something I would welcome.

Defending against only their POC I can see would also be risky as I know these "people" have a habit of changing docs to suit themselves and the courts let them get away with it.

The third option is an embarrassed defence which I'm not even certain I can use, on the one hand they have provided documentation which would effectively remove the option of an ED, but then again the docs provided are for an agreement with different refs to that stated on the POC

I have also been advised of the possibility of getting them to replead due to the vagueness of their POC

halp anyone

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Well to be completely honest, if there isnt a distinct breach which is iredeemable (like in wilson) or you actually don't think you had the money in the first place on those terms, which I dont think is what you are saying, then you are simply looking for technicalities, and a DJ would see through that. Whether you want to fight that way or not is up to you, but the risks involved, for me, are too high.

The people who can afford those risks can take these issues through the court room and bear the costs if they fail, and clairfy issues for other people affected, win or lose, and force the lenders to treat people better in future. The Egg agreements arent one or the other hence why PT's Slater case has caused such a palava and taken so long.

If you know you owe a debt, but you think the interest/charges etc are too high, then defend those parts and get an offer to pay in on the remainder. We know the courts accept reconstructions and its a matter of luck if you get a judge who sticks to every technicality of the CCA or one who looks at the common sense issues - did you borrow the money, so pay it back type. In the end you have to do what is right for you, it is your neck on the line when it comes down to it and only you know if you are happy and confident arguing technicalitys or if you just want to get the debt sorted out and paid in a fair affordable manner.

I'm not against using the CCA by a long chalk, but I do worry about people getting bogged down with technicalities when there is really no need, because the debt has been incurred and there are no life or death issues over repaying it so long as its at a sensible rate and fair.

As always just my opinion, and maybe not very popular in the CCA forums, you are not 'another egg case' to test some issues in court, you are you and only you know your situation and what you need to do to sort things out.

Before this court claim arrived I think i would have used the cca issues to get the debt taken back by Egg so they were suing you (or not) directly - gets rid of all these niggly DOA issues anyway.

Have you had the PPI back btw (sorry minds gone blank on that bit lol) Give us the figures (if you know them) on the loan amount, PPI amount, interest rate and APR and someone can work out those bits ref the 'misstated APR'.

[Spamheed]

Re: Cabot Claim Form

Cheers for that Ame, not one to make waves, or trying to break the mould.

In 2005 I would have been self employed so know 100% that I wouldn't have asked or agreed to it
Have Contacted Egg re the PPI, but methinks any sort of settlement is a long way down the road, I understand that their policy is to knock everyone back initially and only negotiate with the more persistent claimants.

But that opens up yet another argument, say Egg pay up the PPI or a pro rata amount but Cabot are still attempting to claim it in its entirity


Anyhoo the figs as stated exactly on the agreement are:

Principal Loan £5000.00
Loan Protection Protection £1180
Total Amount £6180.80

Number of Monthly Installments 72 payments of £107.36


Interest Rate 7.56
APR 7.9%