Cabot finance taking me to court

[Jasonknox]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

We're do I stand

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

Because you didn't pay over half you didn't voluntarily VT the car. So we need to look at reposession. Even though you agreed it it is still reposession. You'd only actually paid about £6k. So they would have needed a court order to gain reposession if you hadn't agreed.

Therefore you need to look at the settlement amounts on the contract.. I don't know the dates but if you had paid just over £6k then that's 1/3 of the contract amount. So over 1/4 but less than 1/2 - so look like you owe just over £8k.

You should still insist on a full breakdown of their claim and how the amount claimed is being calculated. There would be a shortfall after sale of the car of about £6k then interest / charges on top.

To know the car was sold at £2200 you must have had more communication after handing the car back ?? Do you have any of those letters ??

Need someone else to take a look [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION]

[Amethyst]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

I have a statement from bct to say how much is paid what do you mean it's a legal what they are doing how can they get it to court

Can you post that up or send it to me please.

[R0b]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

It does sound like voluntary surrender/repossession although if you have any correspondence when this happened it would help to identify what's gone on. On the other hand if you had VT'd you can do this at any time and is not subject to payment up to 50% first, but the difference required to bring the payments up to the 50% mark becomes a debt which can be pursued before the courts.

If you are satisfied that you VT'd and did not voluntarily surrender the car (although they could have pressured you into the surrender route which would be in breach of other obligations and could create an unfair relationship) your liability will be the difference between what you paid to date and 50% of the car, if you did surrender, then it seems like you could be liable for the amount claimed. It is much harder to defend something without evidence and some people out there will play the ignorance card or the 'I thought I did this ... ' answer but where there is a lack of all evidence for the court to understand who is right and who is wrong, there is a case I came across in which the court had agreed that termination of the agreement will be done for the benefit of the debtor and not the creditor so any ambiguities should be construed in favour of the debtor - will try to dig it out.

The other side to this is that Cabot has no agreement to prove that you owe it, has a CCA request been done @Amethyst? The court has stayed the claim on several occasions, Cabot have unsuccessfully tried to lift the stay and obtain judgment against you, presumably for the fact that there is no evidence to prove you owe it. So on that basis you can argue that Cabot had no right to bring a claim, it is an abuse of process and rely on the High Court case of Nomura International v Granada Group 2007. The quote you will need to rely on is mainly set out in paragraph 37:

In my judgment, when regard is had to these authorities the key question must always be whether or not, at the time of issuing a Writ, the claimant was in a position properly to identify the essence of the tort or breach of contract complained of and if given appropriate time to marshall what it knew, to formulate Particulars of Claim. If the claimant was not in a position to do so, then the claimant could have no present intention of prosecuting proceedings, since it had no known basis for doing so. Whilst therefore the absence of present intention to prosecute proceedings is not enough to constitute an abuse of process, without the additional absence of known valid grounds for a claim, the latter carries with it, as a matter of necessity, the former. If a claimant cannot do that which is necessary to prosecute the claim by setting out the basis of it, even in a rudimentary way, a claimant has no business to issue a Claim Form at all "in the hope that something may turn up".

I've attached a copy of the judgment too if you want to print it off and show the judge on Friday. CLICK HERE FOR THE CASE JUDGMENT

So at a glance, it would seem you have two lines of argument here:

1. You VT'd the agreement and you do not owe anything and put the onus on Cabot to prove that you do. They have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their claim, therefore their claim is groundless and a claim cannot be stayed indefinitely. They have had several chances to provide such evidence and they have not. This is therefore an abuse of process and refer to the quote above.

2. OR If they do supply evidence then you need to consider the alternative argument that is by you producing your statements showing how much you paid and that you VT'd which means liability is limited to circa £2,200. Note this is your backup argument and you shouldn't present this right away otherwise Cabot will simply rely on this and you will owe money.

I don't usually condone avoiding liabilities but if they simply do not have a shred of evidence against you then leave it up to them to prove that it is owed. So stick to argument 1 and use argument 2 as a backup. This is my thoughts on this matter but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Jasonknox]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

No more communication after sale none

- - - Updated - - -

What you mean it's Lydia to 2200

- - - Updated - - -

I meant Ltd

[R0b]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

You've said that the car was sold around £2,200 but when you VT the car remains with the finance company and whatever proceeds resulting from the sale of the car does not go towards your VT amount, it goes in their back pocket and you are still liable to pay 50% of the total amount payable. So if the car brought you up to the 50% amount then that does not count towards it

[Jasonknox]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

I post copy of statement in a min rob

[Jasonknox]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

Just sent statement to admin mate

[Jasonknox]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

What's a caa

[nemesis45]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

What's a caa

CCA = consumer credit agreement: or A request made under the provisions of sections 77/78 or 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1994 for a copy of a regulated credit agreement.
This has a statutory fee of £1.00 the " creditor" has 12 + 2 working days to comply.

nem

[Jasonknox]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

How do I know if they put in for a caa request

[R0b]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

Its not them who put in the request it is you, if they fail to comply with the deadline then the claim is unenforceable until the contract is provided or a reconstituted one.

[Jasonknox]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

So it's too late for me to do that as I in court Friday

[nemesis45]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

How do I know if they put in for a caa request

You make the request in this case to Cabot Financial UK ltd., the claimant.
[MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] and others have been trying very hard to get information from you and give you answers Jason it would be a good idea to read their posts carefully and respond fully to their questions.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

How do I know if they put in for a caa request

You make the request in this case to Cabot Financial UK ltd., the claimant.
[MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] and others have been trying very hard to get information from you and give you answers Jason it would be a good idea to read their posts carefully and respond fully to their questions.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

Its not them who put in the request it is you, if they fail to comply with the deadline then the claim is unenforceable until the contract is provided or a reconstituted one.

Posts crossed.

nem

[Kati]

Re: Cabot finance taking me to court

Got them ( [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] is a bit busy right now )