Discussion on CPR 7 Notice ????

[Brandy1234]

Well guys i still not heard anything back as of yet so there deadline has way past unless they going to pay to get it active again, also i had no letters from Cabot or Mortimer Clarke so what should my next move be? can i still apply for the CPR 7 Notice? or not poke the bear as they say?

Hi,

A CPR 7 Notice is not 'applied for' as you infer.

A CPR 7 Notice is 'sent'.

If you do hear from Cabot or Mortimer Clarke, send them the CPR 7 Notice.

[Brandy1234]

Re: Court Claim - Cabot Financial (UK) LTD / Capital One - 15-12-2017

Hi can someone give this the once over please to make sure it's okay before i submit it later today thank you.

You have not 'defended' or 'denied' their claim.

To do so, you have to totally rebut their claim.

You need to send a CPR 7 Notice to truly and effectively 'rebut' the claim


In the XYZ Court Claim No: ABCD12345

BETWEEN

CABOT BLAH DE BLAH
claimant
AND

YOU BLAH DE CLAH
defendant



DEFENDANT

NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPR 7, PD 7B, Para 10

1 I hereby give you Notice that I am an ordinary consumer and hereby request the court follow the consumer credit Act protection procedure in these proceedings

2 This Notice is hereby duly served on the Claimant and all and any parties concerned with these proceedings


Dated this: XYZ 2018

Your Name
Your Full Address and postcode


I would also include in the defence the fact that the claimant has confirmed they do not have any evidence to support their claim and I would attach the letter hey sent to you confirming the fact.

[Englishknight]

Re: Court Claim - Cabot Financial (UK) LTD / Capital One - 15-12-2017

Hi you lost me on the CPR 7 notice sorry.

[Brandy1234]

Re: Court Claim - Cabot Financial (UK) LTD / Capital One - 15-12-2017

Hi you lost me on the CPR 7 notice sorry.

No worries. It is quite straight forward, however, proceed as you deem fit.

[Brandy1234]

Hi Englishknight,

The Defence you have sent is brilliant. The only thing missing is the CPR 7 Notice I mentioned to you.

Let me do my best to explain more about the CPR7 Notice.

The CPR7 Notice I posted on your thread is exactly the same one I used in a claim that PRA Group brought against me. I won my case and I received just under £900 in wasted costs!!

The response you have received from Cabot is a 'typical' response. Their response essentially leads on, and looks to maintain the presumption that you are a business customer.

The court will not look behind the 'presumption' that you are a business customer unless you send a CPR 7 Notice.

The CPR 7 Notice, acts to inform the court and the Claimant that you are NOT a business customer, but just an ordinary consumer about to be taken advantage of by Cabot and Mortimer Clarke, who has invoked the courts 'protection'.

The CPR 7 Notice must be sent (served) to Mortimer Clarke and filed (sent) to the court to sit alongside your defence.

Ultimately, it is up to you what you do, I can only talk about what I did differently that led to me getting a result that worked in my favour not theirs.

By the way, it is Mortimer Clarke who will suffer, for they are not registered with the FCA at all, so if they pursue the claim after the CPR7 Notice is sent, you can make a claim against them for 'professional negligence'!!

Best of luck, what ever you decide to do ; )
Â*

[Diana M]

it is Mortimer Clarke who will suffer, for they are not registered with the FCA at all, so if they pursue the claim after the CPR7 Notice is sent, you can make a claim against them for 'professional negligence'!!

In what way would the OP have a claim for professional negligence against Mortimer Clarke solicitors who represent the Claimant in these proceedings?

Di

[Brandy1234]

Hi Di

I'll do my best to explain.

As a solicitor you may be aware that firms like Mortimer Clarke issue claims in the business centre and when they do, the claim will normally show that payments and documents must be sent to them and not the claimant. (2nd box on the claim form under the box where the claimants name is)

They can do this, so long as they rely/maintain the claim relates to a business relationship that exists between the claimant and the named defendant, for they are covered by the SRA for such activity. ("business presumption") and ('exemption')

When I speak of 'exemption', I speak of the FSMA s.19 and s.23 which means a firm who is dealing in 'debt collecting' relating to any ordinary consumers, must be registered with the FCA. I take for granted you are aware that 'debt collecting' is a 'regulated activity', if that makes sense?

So, when the CPR 7 notice is sent, I found it acted to a) remove the 'business presumption'/'exemption' because, b) the court, the claimant and of course Mortimer are now aware they are targeting an ordinary consumer, NOT a business person and thereby c) puts them at risk of 'negligence' if they pursue the claim from that point forward.

If the claimant instructs Mortimer to pursue, and they do, then the claimant becomes liable for 'costs incurred', which is 'wasted costs' (unreasonable behaviour) and a claim against Mortimer would be made for negligence, for they should know registration with the SRA does not cover them to pursue consumer debt, leaving them wholly liable at risk of 'negligence, notwithstanding, breach of s.19 FSMA and contravention/offence under s.23 FSMA.

It's a serious issue, not to be taken lightly I don't think.

[Diana M]

Hi Di

I'll do my best to explain.

. . . . . if that makes sense?

So, when the CPR 7 notice is sent, I found it acted to a) remove the 'business presumption'/'exemption' because, b) the court, the claimant and of course Mortimer are now aware they are targeting an ordinary consumer, NOT a business person and thereby c) puts them at risk of 'negligence' if they pursue the claim from that point forward.

If the claimant instructs Mortimer to pursue, and they do . . . . . . and a claim against Mortimer would be made for negligence, for they should know registration with the SRA does not cover them to pursue consumer debt, leaving them wholly liable at risk of 'negligence

How can a Defendant who hasn't instructed a solicitor sue them for professional negligence? With respect that doesn't make sense.

I would be careful of advising a forum member to follow your theory.

Di

[Englishknight]

Thank you Di I did some digging around on the internet about it and I cant see how it applies to my case, but apart from that should I just leave it be or get the courts to throw it out? Thanks

[Brandy1234]

Di

You surprise me.

It is more than possible, and will ALWAYS be the case, that a party who has not instructed a solicitor can sue the claimants solicitor.

Quite why you are not aware of this fact, with respect, is quite concerning.

I would have thought you would look into it, after all, this is a consumer forum is it not? and, you are here to assist consumers, are you not?

[Diana M]

Di

You surprise me.

. . . . Quite why you are not aware of this fact, with respect, is quite concerning.

I would have thought you would look into it, after all, this is a consumer forum is it not? and, you are here to assist consumers, are you not?

I work for a law firm which volunteers pro bono assistance on various internet forums when time allows.

With respect, it's not your concern which issues I choose to look into, nor is my reason for being "here" any of your business.

Diana M

[Brandy1234]

Di

You surprise me.

It is more than possible, and will ALWAYS be the case, that a party who has not instructed a solicitor can sue the claimants solicitor.

Quite why you are not aware of this fact, with respect, is quite concerning.

I would have thought you would look into it, after all, this is a consumer forum is it not? and, you are here to assist consumers, are you not?

I am aware of your status and I understand your limited time frames.

I s'pose I should be honoured that you found time to look to sway consumers away from the fact they can sue the other parties firm of solicitors..

There is nothing wrong in guiding fellow consumers to the fact they can sue a solicitor who is not acting on their behalf.

With respect, just because you do not know, or do not have an incline to find out this fact, does not mean it is not a consumers right to sue the other parties solicitor.


See the link below, it helps consumers understand what you as a solicitor, who is 'assisting' consumers should know, and what consumers need to know, because the "consumer" is the "Third Party" in these types of claims

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/ha...5/content.page

[Brandy1234]

Just posted for the likes of Mortimer Clarke and others:

You and others

Version 19 of the Handbook was published on 1 October 2017. For more information, please click "History" above. 4th Section: You and others

Chapter 11: Relations with third parties

This chapter is about ensuring you do not take unfair advantage of those you deal with and that you act in a manner which promotes the proper operation of the legal system.

This includes your conduct in relation to undertakings; there is no obligation to give or receive an undertaking on behalf of a client but, if you do, you must ensure that you achieve the outcomes listed in this chapter.

The conduct requirements in this area extend beyond professional and business matters. They apply in any circumstances in which you may use your professional title to advance your personal interests.

The outcomes in this chapter show how the Principles apply in the context of your relations with third parties. Outcomes

You must achieve these outcomes: O(11.1) you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity; O(11.2) you perform all undertakings given by you within an agreed timescale or within a reasonable amount of time; O(11.3) where you act for a seller of land, you inform all buyers immediately of the seller's intention to deal with more than one buyer; O(11.4) you properly administer oaths, affirmations or declarations where you are authorised to do so. Indicative behaviours

Acting in the following way(s) may tend to show that you have achieved these outcomes and therefore complied with the Principles: IB(11.1) providing sufficient time and information to enable the costs in any matter to be agreed; IB(11.2) returning documents or money sent subject to an express condition if you are unable to comply with that condition; IB(11.3) returning documents or money on demand if they are sent on condition that they are held to the sender's order; IB(11.4) ensuring that you do not communicate with another party when you are aware that the other party has retained a lawyer in a matter, except: (a) to request the name and address of the other party's lawyer; or (b) the other party's lawyer consents to you communicating with the client; or (c) where there are exceptional circumstances; IB(11.5) maintaining an effective system which records when undertakings have been given and when they have been discharged; IB(11.6) where an undertaking is given which is dependent upon the happening of a future event and it becomes apparent the future event will not occur, notifying the recipient of this.
Acting in the following way(s) may tend to show that you have not achieved these outcomes and therefore not complied with the Principles: IB(11.7) taking unfair advantage of an opposing party's lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer; IB(11.8) demanding anything for yourself or on behalf of your client, that is not legally recoverable, such as when you are instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the cost of the letter of claim since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable; IB(11.9) using your professional status or qualification to take unfair advantage of another person in order to advance your personal interests; IB(11.10) taking unfair advantage of a public office held by you, or a member of your family, or a member of your firm or their family. In-house practice

The outcomes in this chapter apply to your in-house practice. Notes (i) This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 7 (Management of your business) in relation to the system you will need to have in place to control undertakings. Chapter 12: Separate businesses

This chapter deals with your obligations when you have links to a separate business that is not authorised by the SRA or another approved regulator.

You can be a manager or employee of a separate business. However, you cannot practise as a solicitor, REL or RFL in a separate business except as permitted by Rule 4 (In-house practice) of the SRA Practice Framework Rules (see also Rules 1-3).

Clients of a separate business will not have the same regulatory protections as clients of an authorised body and it is important that this is clear to clients of the separate business particularly where they are being referred from the authorised body or cases are being divided with the authorised body. Outcomes

You must achieve these outcomes: O(12.1) you ensure, and have safeguards in place to ensure, that clients are clear about the extent to which the services that you and the separate businessoffer are regulated; O(12.2) you do not represent, directly or indirectly, the separate business as being regulated by the SRA or any of its services being regulated by the SRA; O(12.3) the separate business does not carry on: (a) reserved legal activities; or (b) immigration work unless that work is regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner; O(12.4) you only (a) refer, recommend or introduce a client to the separate business; (b) put your client and the separate business in touch with each other; or (c) divide, or allow to be divided, a client's matter between you and the separate business,
where the client has given informed consent. In-house practice

The outcomes in this chapter apply to your in-house practice

[EXC]

I am aware of your status and I understand your limited time frames.

I s'pose I should be honoured that you found time to look to sway consumers away from the fact they can sue the other parties firm of solicitors..

There is nothing wrong in guiding fellow consumers to the fact they can sue a solicitor who is not acting on their behalf.

With respect, just because you do not know, or do not have an incline to find out this fact, does not mean it is not a consumers right to sue the other parties solicitor.


See the link below, it helps consumers understand what you as a solicitor, who is 'assisting' consumers should know, and what consumers need to know, because the "consumer" is the "Third Party" in these types of claims

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/ha...5/content.page

This seems to apply to SRA Principles. If the FCA's principles (in respect of the regulation of financial institutions) are anything to go by, FSMA specifically precludes private individuals from having the standing to sue for beaches of them.

[sloane82]

Hi reading through this did anyone mention to you about contacting the financial ombudsman service?