Cabot and Restons Conspiracy to Defraud

Hi guys, I’ve been slogging away in the background and have finally got around to joining the forum as I need a little help with an ongoing problem.

The lead up and background to this post can be read here on the original goodf site starting with page 6 and 7 of …. MKDP, Barclays, deed of assignment etc! Part 2  ….
and moving on to …. Cabot & Restons Conspiracy to Defraud ! ( I did post the links but apparently I'm not allowed to do so for the first seven days as a new member of the forum .... booooo !!)

Anyway, basically up to now I haven’t been sent any proof of anything from Cabot or Restons, no CCA etc, and after much back and forth with Cabot, Restons and Northampton CCBC (court) etc I got bored and sent an unless order with application for the claim to be struck out on 5 June 2017.

Unfortunately I cocked up and didn’t send Cabot or Restons copies of the unless order/strike out request.  Not used to this stuff.
The court ordered Cabot/Restons to provide the documents requested by 2 August 2017.

Restons came back with an order to set aside my strike out on 21 July 2017 and in panel 10 evidence box proceeded to whinge about the fact I had not informed them and that my application was premature and unnecessary as the documents had been requested from their client (Cabot).

Apparently …. ‘the Claimant is making proactive efforts to comply with the Defendants request’.  
They continue by complaining that the CPR18 I sent … ‘is a template letter presumably obtained on the internet and/or consumer based websites which intend to assist individuals in avoiding repayment of legitimate debt’.
They then say that  … ‘a number of the documents requested are irrelevant or non existent’.
‘The DoA is a confidential document ..... and it would be a security breach for the Claimant to disclose this to the Defendant’.
‘The only requirement of the Claimant is to issue a Notice’. (of Assignment)
‘A deed of Novation does not exist and is irrelevant’.
‘There is no requirement of ..... a Default warning letter’.
‘The only requirement of the original Creditor was to issue the Defendant with a Default Notice and there was no requirement to issue a Termination notice’.

Attached to the set aside request, very unfortunately, is a one side/page photocopy of the CCA (definitely not in any way an original or certified copy).  It is a TSB one, well before the merger with Lloyds and has two signatures, I don’t know if that would be relevant or helpful to Cabot or even me as it is a different bank?

Also attached are photocopies of the Notice of Assignment from Lloyds and Cabot

This is the only ‘evidence’ so far submitted by Cabot and Restons, which I don’t think are relevant as the NoA was never sent to me via recorded delivery.  Am I correct in saying that it has to be recorded delivery in order to be valid? (both came in the same envelope too originally)

Northampton decided they no longer wanted to deal with the case and sent it to Norwich court and Norwich decided to have a physical hearing which is next week.

I had been promised assistance from a person “outside” and had sent them all the info thus far to look through and suggest to me how to handle this in court but unfortunately, for what ever reason, after six weeks they have not provided me with anything so I’m now asking you good people, a bit late in the day, for help.

I’ve just watched ‘Being in the Court Talking to a Judge’ by steve mccrae but I think if I start doing something like that it’ll be suicide as I don’t know what the hell I’m doing.

Could you be so kind as to give me pointers as to what to do in court, what things to point out and argue against etc, and ultimately what tricks I should be aware of so as to not hang myself.

Many thanks.  

Ok, few things here, firstly you've left this really late, you should have submitted your witness statement to the Court and served it on Restons 14 days before the hearing date, so you NEED to get on with it and send it off.

Have they produced the Notice of Assignment from Lloyds to MkDC, then MkDC to Cabot ? If not needs to be in your witness statement.

You need to say you don't believe what they've sent you is a true copy of the agreement and more importantly WHY.

Have they sent a Default Notice ?

And you need to make the point that you're entitled to see the Deed of Assigment / Sales Agreement and say why, quote Van Lynn vs Pelias 1969, look it up to ensure you've got the right points and you understand it.

All that has to be in your Witness Statement, but be aware they may not allow it as you haven't kept to the order of Court that says it must be there 14 days ahead.

You don't need to mention that you didn't send a copy of the unless order/strike out request, they won't be able to prove you didn't post it. I don't think you have to use registered post, in fact it used to be stated that once you post a letter in the post box that then was enough to be classed as served if I remember rightly.

Hi Tiggy and Jinxer, thanks for the lightning quick reply.

Yes I have left it a bit late I agree as it suddenly dawned on me that the hearing was just round the corner and I’ve been distracted with other things.  I live in hope

Sorry to confuse matters but forget about MKDP as they have nothing to do with this one.  I had started this case on the end of MKDP Barclays thread but then moved it to its own thread to make things tidy.

Tiggy, I don’t recall receiving any default notice however many years ago it was and Cabot/Restons haven’t produced any copies.

Originally I had sent my defence/witness statement to Northampton back in April as below and it should be noted that I sent the defence before receiving the CCA request reply from Cabot.

Have I missed anything out other than responding to their set aside order application? ==============

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited - Claimant

Vs

…………… – Defendant

Case Summery in brief and Defence

The Defendant, …………., does not have, has not had and will never have any conceivable association, contract or agreement, implied or otherwise, with the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited.

On …………July 2016, the Defendant sent to the Claimant, via Royal Mail recorded delivery (Royal Mail barcode: …………) a letter requesting legitimate certified copies of documentation, including but not limited to, the Deed of Assignment, to verify proof of their claim.
This was denied by the Claimant.

On ……….. February 2017 - the Defendant sent to the Claimant, via Royal Mail recorded delivery (Royal Mail barcode: ………….) a ‘Pre Action Conduct’ letter asking for the Claimant to ‘list the essential documents on which the Claimant intends to rely’.
This letter has been ignored by the Claimant and no acknowledgment has been received by the Defendant.

On ……….. February 2017 - the Defendant sent to the Claimant solicitors, Restons Solicitors via Royal Mail recorded delivery (Royal Mail barcode: ………..) a letter asking for them to ‘list the essential documents on which the Claimant intends to rely’ along with a copy of the ‘Pre Action Conduct’ letter previously sent to the Claimant.
This letter has been ignored by Restons Solicitors and no acknowledgment has been received by the Defendant.

On ………… March 2017 – the Defendant received the court claim activated by Restons Solicitors.

On ………… April 2017 – the Defendant sent to the Claimant, via Royal Mail recorded delivery (Royal Mail barcode: …………..) a CCA statutory request letter with a £1.00 postal order, to comply with 1974 Consumer Credit Act.
This letter has been ignored by the Claimant and no acknowledgment has been received by the Defendant.

On ……….. April 2017 – the Defendant sent to the Claimant solicitors, Restons Solicitors via Royal Mail recorded delivery (Royal Mail barcode: ……………) a CPR18 request letter along with a copy of the CCA statutory request letter previously sent to the Claimant.
This letter has been ignored by Restons Solicitors and no acknowledgment has been received by the Defendant.

On ……… April 2017 – the Defendant returned the court acknowledgement of service.

I. The Defendant denies monies are owed to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim and does not recognise the assertion that any debt has been Legally Assigned to the Claimant and as such the Claimant is put to the strictest of proof, including but not limited to:

I. Pursuant to s.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974) the Original Signed Consumer Credit Agreement, along with a copy of the original Terms & Conditions and any subsequent changes in said Terms & Conditions (referred to as a ‘contract’ within the Particulars of Claim) and show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement.

II. Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed by proving a full Statement of the Account referred to, including details of all payments made and calculation of how interest was charged against each item listed, leading to the Alleged Debt of £………...

III. Also, as this is an Alleged Debt, I believe Penalty Charges may have been applied to the Account and as such may be unlawful under the Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Regulations 1999. Therefore, I would request details of each and every Penalty Charge applied to the Account along with details of their lawfulness (i.e. if the charge is stated as being for ‘Administration’ what Administration was undertaken to support the Penalty Charge being applied) along with details of any Interest imposed against each Penalty Charge applied.

IV. Show how and when the agreement was breached and provide notice by way of Notice of Sums in Arrears served by the Original Owners along with a copy of the Default Notice from the original owners of the Alleged Debt and Certified Copies of how this was served upon the Defendant.

V. Show how the Claimant has the legal right / Absolute Assignment (as defined by section 136 of the law of Property Act 1925) to issue a claim by providing the following:

a) A copy of the Default Notice and Certified Copies of how this was served upon the Defendant.

b) As the claimant has stated the debt was ‘assigned to the claimant on June …. 2016 ’ a copy of the Legal Assignment, including, but not limited to a copy of the Deed of Assignment, as specified by Lord Denning in his ruling in Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 82, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Deed of Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824.  I require sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid and that the alleged assignee, can give me good discharge of the debt as per s 136(1)c of the Law of Property Act 1925.

c) A copy of how the Defendant was served with the aforementioned Legal Assignment.

d) A copy of the alleged Notice of Assignment allegedly sent by the original creditor to the Defendant and details of how this was served upon the Defendant.
For the assignment of a debt to be effective (and so giving the Claimant a right of action) a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served upon me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

e) Details of the costs paid by the Claimant to the Original Owner for the Alleged Assignment of the Agreement on June 24 2016 (as referenced in the Particulars of Claim) and I request the Claimant disclose EXACTLY how much they allege they paid for this account.

VI. As per Civil Procedure rules 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation (as set out in the Particulars of Claim) that the money is owed.

VII. Also, should any amount be inclusive of interest, the Defendant denies interest is payable in accordance with Section 69 of County Courts Act 1984 and again the Claimant is put to the Strictest of Proof.

VIII. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you under Civil Procedure Rule Part 39 – Practice Direction 39a (3.3) any and each of the documents upon which the claimant intends to rely for ‘proof of claim’; the ORIGINALS should be brought to any subsequent hearing for examination.

I respectfully request the court strike out the claim with prejudice for the following reasons:

I believe that the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited has made the claim against the Defendant with full knowledge that they do not have the required documents available.

Neither the Claimant nor their solicitors Restons have made any effort to comply with Civil Procedure Rules and also have had (so far) nine months to supply the requested documents which they have failed to do.

At no time has the defendant received, from the Claimant or their solicitors, any correspondence via the Royal Mail Recorded Delivery Service.

I believe that the Consumer Credit Agreement is unenforceable due to the date/age of the original agreement, 1986 (Pre-April 2007) and that if any copy of the CCA is produced it will not have the signature of both parties - Debtor and Creditor/or their representative and dated.

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
April 2017

And additional to that ……

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited - Claimant

Vs

…………. – Defendant

Additional Evidence for Defence

Enclosed are copies of two letters received by the Defendant from the Claimant.

The letter, marked D1, dated ….. August 2016, was received by the Defendant last year, 2016.  This has been highlighted for convenience to point out that the Claimant, it would seem, has never had a legitimate original or legitimate copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement available as even back then, nine months ago, the Claimant says they have contacted Lloyds for a copy of the CCA.  
It would seem that there is no Deed of Assignment relating to the Defendant either.  

The letter, marked D2, dated …... April 2017, arrived after the deadline for the Defendant to submit the defence to the court.  This clearly shows that the Claimant has failed to comply with the 12 day time limit and does not have a legitimate original or legitimate copy of the CCA available which renders the agreement to be Unenforceable at Law.

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
May 2017

And from that …….

I seem to have got it wrong at the very end concerning the CCA details but surely it’s still unenforceable unless it’s an original or certified copy ?!

…….. April 2017 - received Cabot letter dated …. April 2017 stating that they don’t have CCA info on file.  They acknowledge the 12 day limit but ask for 40 days to provide it.
They never did provide it.

……... May 2017 – received letter from Restons, dated ….. May 2017, saying that I’ve previously received all the documentation I’ve requested, wanting evidence that I’ve legitimately requested a copy of the CCA (despite me already sending it to them via recorded delivery) and saying that when the CCA arrives they’ll request my defence be struck out.

……… June 2017 – sent by recorded delivery an N244 application notice for an ‘unless order’ to the court along with a draft of the ‘unless order’ and a witness statement.
Evidence also provided are ‘Pre Action Conduct’ letter dated …. February 2017, (no response received) CPR18 request letter dated …. March 2017, (no response received), CCA request letter dated …. March 2017, Cabot response to CCA request dated …. April 2017

The 12 day period only applies 'whilst the default remains' so once they produce an agreement that no longer applies.

You need to go through the agreement and document why you do not believe it to be a true copy.

They need to demonstrate a chain of assignment, from Lloyds through MKDP onwards.

You need to make it clear that you have requested this information on a number of occasions, Restons should have had all the proof claim (you did ask for it under the pre action protocol) BEFORE commencing a claim and to not have it is an abuse of the Court process and should have been produced when requested (ie February 2017) under the pre action conduct protocol.

In your view Their failure to produce documents, which were required prior to commencement of proceedings, should not be remedied by the setting aside of the unless order.

Thanks Tiggy, as I mentioned earlier MKDP is not part of this and never has been so there won’t be any chain of assignment. Only Lloyds directly to Cabot.

Should I have received a default notice from Cabot as the new creditor or is it just required from the original creditor ?

With regards to the CCA not being a true copy then I will use this info below I gleaned from the old goodf site and just dug out of my records………

To stop any confusion and have a readily available check list for Consumer Credit Agreements BEFORE 2007, here are the requirements for such agreements - if one of the requirements is missing, then the agreement is unenforceable. In no particular order:

* The Agreement must contain a Credit Limit, or a reference that the Credit Limit will be set at a later date, or a statement that no Credit Limit is required.

* The Agreement must declare the APR% rate, monthly and/or annually.

* The Agreement must contain a date/or indication of a date such as weekly, monthly or annually, for payments to be made, or state a date will be decided upon later, or that monthly statements will be provided to show the date of required payment.

* The Agreement must contain a notice of your right to cancellation - usually 14 days from the date signed.

* The Agreement must contain ALL Terms and Conditions in existence on the date of signing.

* The agreement must be legible, and the type face distinguishable from the background colour.

* The Agreement must be signed by both parties - Debtor and Creditor/or their representative and dated.

* Any copy of the Agreement lawfully requested by the debtor under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, must be a valid and true Certified Copy of the Original Agreement - in this instance, reconstituted agreements are not valid, true copies and unacceptable.

* ALL of the above, must be contained within a single, signed document and parts may not be sent separately, or issued under separate cover.

If any of the above is not included, or if the Agreement is not legible, then the Agreement is unenforceable at law.

==================

The only “valid” (if it was an original or certified copy) part I have on the photocopy is the bit about it being signed by both parties.

Below is the statement I sent with the unless/strike out form back in June 2017.

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited - Claimant

Vs

……………. – Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT

The Defendant, ………….., does not have, has not had and will never have any conceivable association, contract or agreement, implied or otherwise, with the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited.
I do not know the Claimant; they are making claims against me that they cannot verify through repeatedly, reasonably and respectfully requested documents which they are legally required to possess in order to enforce their claims.
By their own acquiescence they have ALREADY ADMITTED THAT THEY CANNOT VERIFY THIS ALLEGED DEBT.

As outlined in the defence dated ……… April 2017 and additional evidence dated ………….. May 2017 already submitted to the court.

All requests by the Defendant for the Claimant to provide legitimate documents and/or information for verification of claim since …. July 2016 have been ignored or the Claimant has failed to comply with any statutory request.

This claim is unenforceable, it should never have been brought, the prescribed period of 12 days is long past as has the 40 days suggested by the Claimant in their letter dated …. April 2017 (see previously submitted defence & evidence) to obtain an original or certified copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claim is a complete abuse of the Court system and appears to be an attempt to defraud both the court and the defendant.

The particulars of claim on the claim form is specifically worded by deliberate lack of inclusion of any named documents in an attempt to avoid the Claimant having to produce any legitimate documental evidence to validate proof of claim.

I believe that there are no legitimate documents available and that the claim and agreement to be invalid and Unenforceable at Law.

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts in this witness statement are true.
….June 2017

=====================

I shall draft up another letter to send tomorrow to the court, Cabot and Restons pointing out these things and pushing the point that the CCA and NoA’s are invalid even though it’s short of the 14 day timeframe of the hearing. Worth a go eh !

Should I mention the Bills of Exchange Act at all and that any ‘debt’ has already been paid by Cabot or would that skew things into their favour ?

Do it in the form of a witness statement and sign it with a Statement of Truth.

Should I mention the Bills of Exchange Act at all and that any ‘debt’ has already been paid by Cabot or would that skew things into their favour ?

No and probably.

Thanks Tiggy, below is my draft to be sent tomorrow (Monday)

In the

COUNTY COURT at NORWICH

Case No: .........

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited - Claimant

Vs

............. – Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT

The Defendant, .............., does not have, has not had and will never have any conceivable association, contract or agreement, implied or otherwise, with the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited.
I do not know the Claimant; they are making claims against me that they cannot verify through repeatedly, reasonably and respectfully requested documents which they are legally required to possess in order to enforce their claims.
By their own acquiescence they have ALREADY ADMITTED THAT THEY CANNOT VERIFY THIS ALLEGED DEBT.

I do not recognise, accept or acknowledge the copy documents provided by Cabot via their solicitors Restons as legitimate evidence. Restons have presented the copy documents to the court in support of their set aside application dated .... July 2017.

I have requested this information on a number of occasions, Cabot and Restons should have had all the proof of claim available BEFORE commencing a claim and to not have it is an abuse of the Court process and should have been produced when requested under the pre action conduct protocol. (ie ..... February 2017)

Their failure to produce documents, which were required prior to commencement of proceedings, should not be remedied by the setting aside of the Defendants unless order dated .... June 2017.

Consumer Credit Agreement

The alleged CCA provided is entirely invalid and unenforceable at law for the following reasons:

* Any copy of the Agreement lawfully requested by the debtor under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, must be a valid and true Certified Copy of the Original Agreement - in this instance, reconstituted agreements are not valid, true copies and unacceptable.
THE COPY PROVIDED IS NOT AN ORIGINAL NOR A CERTIFIED COPY

* The Agreement must contain a Credit Limit, or a reference that the Credit Limit will be set at a later date, or a statement that no Credit Limit is required.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The Agreement must declare the APR% rate, monthly and/or annually.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The Agreement must contain a date/or indication of a date such as weekly, monthly or annually, for payments to be made, or state a date will be decided upon later, or that monthly statements will be provided to show the date of required payment.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The Agreement must contain ALL Terms and Conditions in existence on the date of signing.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The agreement must be legible, and the type face distinguishable from the background colour.
THE COPY PROVIDED IS NOT FULLY LEGIBLE

* ALL of the above, must be contained within a single, signed document.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ABOVE

Notice of Assignment

The alleged copies of the Notice of Assignment are not supported by any evidence that they were served in accordance with ss136(1) and 194(4). I have requested in my original defence, dated Thursday 20 April 2017, proof that these documents were served upon me in the correct manner is required. If the Notice of Assignment was not served in accordance with ss136(1) and 194(4), then it is invalid. This, amongst other things, means they must use recorded / registered post.
Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

Deed of Assignment

My right to see the Deed of Assignment was established by Lord Denning in Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd 1968.

Restons suggest disclosure would be a security breach but it is more likely related to the evidence already provided to the court.

Evidence is already with the court regarding the DoA in the Cabot letter dated 09 August 2016 where Cabot state in writing ‘It does not contain any personal details relating to you or your account ….’.

Default Notice

No evidence of a Default Notice has been provided.

By law - the consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 87-0 - a Default Notice MUST be issued before the Creditor may take any action.

Therefore, if a Default Notice was not issued, then any actions taken are unlawful, null and void.

Restons solicitors set aside application.

Restons solicitors appear to be attempting to distract the court from their obvious lack of providing valid and legitimate documentation by suggesting the Defendant has been using templates in order to avoid paying money owed to their client, Cabot. I would like to point out that their client Cabot constantly uses template letters to harass, intimidate, bully and threaten people into paying money to them without any attempt to provide legitimate proof of claim.

I believe that there are no valid or legitimate documents available and that the claim and CCA agreement to be invalid and Unenforceable at Law.

I request the court dismiss the Cabot/Restons set aside application of ....July 2017 and strike out their claim with prejudice .

Statement of Truth

I believe the facts in this witness statement are true.

…………………………………..
November 2017

The alleged CCA provided is entirely invalid and unenforceable at law for the following reasons:

* Any copy of the Agreement lawfully requested by the debtor under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, must be a valid and true Certified Copy of the Original Agreement - in this instance, reconstituted agreements are not valid, true copies and unacceptable.
THE COPY PROVIDED IS NOT AN ORIGINAL NOR A CERTIFIED COPY

* The Agreement must contain a Credit Limit, or a reference that the Credit Limit will be set at a later date, or a statement that no Credit Limit is required.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The Agreement must declare the APR% rate, monthly and/or annually.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The Agreement must contain a date/or indication of a date such as weekly, monthly or annually, for payments to be made, or state a date will be decided upon later, or that monthly statements will be provided to show the date of required payment.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The Agreement must contain ALL Terms and Conditions in existence on the date of signing.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT

* The agreement must be legible, and the type face distinguishable from the background colour.
THE COPY PROVIDED IS NOT FULLY LEGIBLE

* ALL of the above, must be contained within a single, signed document.
THE COPY PROVIDED DOES NOT CONTAIN THE ABOVE


The only thing I would add is the reason why all these things apply. It's no good just saying how it should be you also need to show the legislation that backs up what you say. Like you have with the pelias construction case. That's just my thoughts though I have no experience of these things.

It's ok take no notice of me I think you already have quoted the act, section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does that cover it all.

No worries Jinxer, thanks

Restons have replied by sending me a costs schedule of everything including attending the future hearing. I assume that is usual practice in these cases, I just hope I win as their little partnership appears to be quite notorious in getting their way regardless of not having any legitimate evidence. Crossing my fingers !!!!!!!!

Should I draft up a costs schedule ?

Any extra advice for me before the 'day' is always welcome

Just stay calm and don't get flustered.  Small room, just you the Judge and their Solicitor, do wigs or gowns - unless it's being held by the High Court as it's over £10k. You'll be kept waiting at least 20 mins whilst the judge reads the case file.

Don't interrupt, you'll be given chance to speak.

Say they should have had all the paper work before commencing proceedings and to not to have is an abuse of the Court Process.

Ask them who they allege they bought this debt off and they say MKDP, ask 'where's the Notice of Assignment from the original creditor to MKDP as you don't appear to have it'.

Write out a list of questions, don't wing it.  Stay cool, Courts aren't scary places, treat it like a business meeting.

Thanks Tiggy, I've been offline for a couple of days but am back.

MKDP have nothing to do with this specific case, it is directly from Lloyds to Cabot, so I should ask for the NoA between those two as, in actual fact, I don't have it.

Have you any other good questions I could use ?

So it's not the judge flanked by two other judges with a barrister in front etc in a court room as it's below £10K, just a little cozy room .... interesting !

I guess generally the list of questions would be pretty much the same as I had written in my defence which I had gleaned from yours Tiggy (I think) on one of your previous posts in the past concerning your defence. Proof of delivery of Default and NoA, DoA, disclosure of how much they paid for the DoA, Original Documents including CCA have to be brought to the hearing etc, etc.

I will stay calm and collected at court but maybe not quite so when I'm in my shed before and after

What riles me the most is that this particular one is the smallest amount of all the ones I've been fighting and they went straight for a court claim presumably thinking I would roll over and pay up. WRONG !!!!

One that I've been fighting recently said that I still owe them but they have given up chasing it. (couldn't find any evidence) Another one got their solicitors to hassle me but this has stalled and in the last 18 months they've only sent me rubbish photocopies of some ten year old statements as 'evidence' and another one has stalled and set a different DCA on me, of which all the letters they have sent so far I have ignored.

I thank all the people on goodf who have engaged directly with me for helping me achieve this result.

I agree with Tiggy as this is what a friend had been told when he was getting divorce and a friend of his was a Supreme Court Judge and he gave similar advice to my friend about not interrupting anyone whose turn it is to speak. If the solicitor was to interrupt you the judge may not like them as you never interrupted them when they were speaking. I wish you all the best when you are in court and come out a winner.

Barnwebb,

you are in the wrong Jurisdiction in the County, you should be at a Court of equity with Lloyds as Defendant, all this nonsense would not be happening and Lloyds know it, that's why Lloyds instruct the DCA to take you there.  Read the first word they place on the Claim "In" the County Court ....  that tells you everything, you are seen as a Debtor and you will argue as a Debtor.

Whatever comes of your hearing, the unconscionable behaviour (non-disclosure of relevant documents) is grounds for appeal at High Court at Chancery in equity, so whatever happens, it can be reversed.

However, simple answer is to deal with Lloyds as you should, as a Beneficiary, settle the account with their co-operation Lloyds will compensate you privately, then simply N244 app to set aside this current DCA action should it not be determined on the day as being dismissed.

In any event you should seek your compensation from Lloyds and stop acting as a Trustee.

Thanks 1saberwow and thanks debt-less.

Erm debt-less, I’m a little confused with that info, this is something I will need to research. Just so you know Lloyds apparently sold to Cabot and Cabot has brought the claim via their solicitors. Would I be dealing with Lloyds at all ?

Going through my paperwork in preparation I've just realised I have sent the CPR18 to restons solicitors and not cabot. This might cause me a bit of bother although restons should have passed it on to cabot as they are acting for them. Prior to that I did sent both of them a pre action conduct letter.

Barnwebb,

there is no selling of anything.

Cabot and the Solicitor have no Legal standing (POA) to bring any Claim, period.

Lloyd's are the Trustee upon the account, are you not aware that all accounts whether they be utility or credit accounts are trusts?

I don't recall anyone mentioning that in the past. I'll have to research it all.

barnwebb wrote:Going through my paperwork in preparation I've just realised I have sent the CPR18 to restons solicitors and not cabot.  This might cause me a bit of bother although restons should have passed it on to cabot as they are acting for them.  Prior to that I did sent both of them a pre action conduct letter.

No that is correct, all correspondence should be sent to the representing Solicitors, except for the CCA request that has to have gone to Cabot along with the £1 fee.

Ah, thanks for the clarification Tiggy, I had a sudden thought of "oh bugger" but all is cool after all.

Restons are arseholes (in case you weren't already aware, haha), one of their letters some months back tried to fob me off with 'oh, but we're just solicitors and have no obligation to provide you with anything' or something along those lines so I did wonder why I was even corresponding with them.

I see 'debt-less' got booted out on the same day they appeared, quite an achievement !

Agreements made before 6 April 2007 are unenforceable if it didn't contain a notice of your right to cancel. (from your post on 'Arrow Global' Tiggy)

The dodgy difficult to read photocopy from 1986 that was sent to me has a box where it says ......... YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL
Once you have signed this agreement, you will have for a short time a right to cancel. Exact details of how and when you can do this will be sent to you by post by us.

I assume this is good enough to not make it unenforceable ?

Other factors do make it unenforceable though so I'm not lost yet.

As it is TSB well before the merger with Lloyds would there have been a transfer deed of some description ? If so should Cabot have it as part of their proof of claim as I have never signed anything with Lloyds ?

Talk about a lamb to the slaughter.

The day started with the Cabot barrister looking seriously pissed off that I had actually turned up.

It was a full size court room with the judge on his pedestal looking very bored and infuriatingly monotone in his verbal delivery, the barrister on one table and me on another facing him.

I asked for both their names as I hadn’t got them prior to the hearing which the judge, looking a bit annoyed, begrudgingly provided.

To cut a long story short the judge just agreed with everything the barrister said.

The barrister started off blah, blah, blah we’ve got all the documents bar the Default Notice to which I said that in the 16 months this has been going on I haven’t seen any true copies nor any proof that they had been served correctly.

The judge said I’m absolutely NOT entitled to see the Deed of Assignment as it is a confidential document etc and that Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 82 is irrelevant as it has been superseded by case law.

The same was said of the Notice of Assignment, that case law has surpassed S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and that they only have to produce a copy with my (your) name and current address and say that it has been posted for it to be considered sent and received.

I argued that the CCA was not a legitimate original or copy and again the barrister, with the judge agreeing all the way, said that it doesn’t have to be and yet again case law has decreed that a reconstituted copy is acceptable even without signatures. According to madam barrister it doesn’t matter about signatures as long as it has my (your) name and address (at the time the CCA was agreed) on it.

The judge allowed their set aside of my strike out and gave them three months to find the Default Notice.

Then he started on about do I have any reason why he shouldn’t add the solicitor costs to the claim and I told him that I have been asking for the paperwork since July 2016 and they should have had all the paperwork before making a claim and he said that was a different argument. He added the costs when I couldn’t think of any other reason.

Basically I was shafted and have three months or less to think of something.

Are there any shit hot barristers out there willing to work for free ?

This is where corporations like Cabot have an easy time because they are rich enough to buy legal eagles who do all the donkey work for them as a job. People like you and me have to squeeze this stuff into our free time and cross our fingers that we get it right on the day.