[CLOSED] - Continues in AAD+ Legal - Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y

[mike'y]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

I have offered solicitor to you but you're intent on ignoring my advances - weirdly...!

I thought you were calling her on Monday?

I never give in to advances from men on the internet or any men for that matter

I don't recall saying I was going to call Jo but have recently sent the paperwork to her so I know I'll be in good hands. I'm still waiting for the SAR info to arrive and then the fuller picture shall be available.

[Roger]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

I think you are confusing Cabot letter with a Claim. The Claim takes precedence. Also with or without a CCA and Documents don't presume that this will automatically place you in a win situation. I lost a Claim where the Claimant produced NO documents mentioned in their claim. The Date of the CCA was prior to the Consumer Credit Act. The Judge basically said Did you have the Money?
My advice is to talk to Jo if nothing else and certainly before doing anything. There are so many loop holes and tricks and traps and don't presume that Cabot letter is a total Defence!

[mike'y]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

And the latest installment is the non production of my SAR. see below.
I think I need to edit one of Niddy's epic letters and scare the Cap out of them

[Roger]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

On their own admission they have taken your money.
How can they write to your address (presumably already known to them?) and offer a refund without knowing the name to refund to?

[mike'y]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

Well, I guess it's just a case of RTS as far as they're concerned. It's funny that they correctly addressed the letter to me instead of Mr 'Not sure who you really are' lol. They really are moronic.

[SXGuy]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

Natwest did exactly the same with 2 accounts of my mothers, refused documents under DPA, because of no signature, argued, more arguing explaining DPA doesnt come in to it, they wouldnt budge, know why? they couldnt locate documents , trouble was though, i had to back down and produce a signature to find that out, sometimes you have to weigh up the pros and cons.

[Roger]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

Natwest did exactly the same with 2 accounts of my mothers, refused documents under DPA, because of no signature, argued, more arguing explaining DPA doesnt come in to it, they wouldnt budge, know why? they couldnt locate documents , trouble was though, i had to back down and produce a signature to find that out, sometimes you have to weigh up the pros and cons.

Their Letter has a Phone Number (presumable they have Fax No). The request is for Passport or Driving License!
Send A Copy of your Passport or Driving License with copy of their letter AND copy of your original request. They have admitted receiving your request and payment! Get this back on their desk by Monday!
Send a Copy of Everything to their Chairman marked Personal and Private!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

No no guys. What the hell....!!!!

There is a claim. You've asked Jo to help so you must speak to her because anything you do may affect the whole claim.

Simply, you don't need to provide ID. But use this in your defence. Why tell a chairman. He'll just laugh. Get sensible. Really guys!! Concentrate on the claim. Nothing else.

If they don't respond to SAR we'd obviously use that against them. So check with Joanna to be safe.

Rules!
You do not need to sign SAR. The creditor must however ensure that its you they're dealing with. Your signature provides no such proof so they're talking crap. You don't need to send any ID - they're talking crap. If you've not moved address since THEY last wrote to you with account details (statements / threats etc) then you don't need to provide ID.

If you've moved since last comm's with crappy1 then you WILL need to provide ID if you want to discuss things with them as they technically wouldn't know you've moved.

* Restons are doing it. Sending letters back saying its unsigned so they're treating it as never received and returning your letter. I'm like great. Fools. Think about it - they started writing to you at your address. You respond and they then say we don't think it's really you. They WILL lose in court.

[Roger]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

No no guys. What the hell....!!!!

There is a claim. You've asked Jo to help so you must speak to her because anything you do may affect the whole claim.

Simply, you don't need to provide ID. But use this in your defence. Why tell a chairman. He'll just laugh. Get sensible. Really guys!! Concentrate on the claim. Nothing else.

If they don't respond to SAR we'd obviously use that against them. So check with Joanna to be safe.

Rules!
You do not need to sign SAR. The creditor must however ensure that its you they're dealing with. Your signature provides no such proof so they're talking crap. You don't need to send any ID - they're talking crap. If you've not moved address since THEY last wrote to you with account details (statements / threats etc) then you don't need to provide ID.

If you've moved since last comm's with crappy1 then you WILL need to provide ID if you want to discuss things with them as they technically wouldn't know you've moved.

* Restons are doing it. Sending letters back saying its unsigned so they're treating it as never received and returning your letter. I'm like great. Fools. Think about it - they started writing to you at your address. You respond and they then say we don't think it's really you. They WILL lose in court.

Thank you Niddy . Another lesson learned!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

Banks do take the mickey - sadly it's a case of playing them at their own game unless you really need something in which case you have to back down.

In this case, as Mikey has Jo on board I'm kinda hinting that he ought to be asking her what he should do. Not us on here

The only lesson here is called tactics. It's a tactical minefield

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

Mike'y,

Has the acknowledgement of service been done yet?

It MUST be done by 4pm tomorrow 8th February...or you'll get a CCJ by default.....BUT please speak to Jo first!!

Elsa xxx

[SXGuy]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

Sorry if I confused the situation. My reference was to a standard cca request. Of course I'd never suggest anything when a claim is received. Leave that to experts

[mike'y]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

AOL has been done, thanks.

The SAR was to the original creditor (Crap One) to see if there's a CCA on file. As for the rejected SAR request, who are they going to make the refunded PO payable to if it's not me? They're muppets and obstructive ones at that. I've drafted a snotty letter to them, it's probably what they want. It's an edited version of one that Niddy gave me to create a response in another matter. It worked a treat

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

But there's a claim. This isn't the "other issue". It's THIS issue.

Mate. Listen to us. Snotty = risky.

Speak to Jo.

[mike'y]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited ( Mortimer Clarke Ltd ) v Mike'y - Issued 20 January 2016

I need the SAR Niddy, it'll be useful to see what info Cabot may have so I may as well pursue it before I file my defence. I can be polite and firm if not obviously snotty I'm due to have another conversation with Jo in a week or so.