Alison's UE Diary

[Roger]

I wouldn't play any games here. My take is your existing LBC stands, so why would you send another?

The LBC becomes the LBA in this context. They have acknowledged in writing but not rebutted that LBC document request.

So either ignore and let their process continue or resend a copy of what you have already sent and I would do that immediately without comment!.
I wouldn't send in a NEW LBC with a new date etc.. !

You see the argument that they can just keep asking again and again until they get a version that suits them isn't what this new process is about is it?

[Still Waving]

Thanks for your responses. With regards to missing the first deadline, I am not sure how the response below affected the deadline. They might be just restarting the process after placing it on hold. I have checked online and my form was received by them and signed for on the 3rd of July.
June 23rd

-

Letter from Mortimer Clarke (dated June 18th) , acknowledging our letter. For the avoidance of doubt, this firm acts on its client's instructions. This firm does not hold the documentation you have requested. We have asked our client to provide them and will come back to you as soon as we can. In the meantime, the matter has been placed on hold and no further action will be taken.

The timeline suggests that when MC received your (copy) letter of 7 June stating that a CCA request was outstanding, they would have realised that the account was UE at that time. They will since have been advised by their client that the copy agreement has been supplied, so they are beginning again at LBA step one. Seems entirely reasonable.

So you would need to do as you were previously advised and ask for the specific documents that Di laid out, when you send back the LBA questionnaire -
"Then go to Box I (where you can request documents) and ask for the Default Notice, the Notice of Assignment and the Deed of Assignment between RBS and Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. I have a reason for stressing the importance of asking for this."

[Warwick65]

My understanding is that any letter of claim has a 'shelf life' so the creditor is acting correctly in sending out a new one although the time span does seem a little short. Incidentally the protocols say the creditor should take into account the response might have been posted towards the end of the 30 days i.e gives a little bit of leeway.

Personally , as I suggested earlier I would ask for the documents I listed because these are the same ones you asked for before. There is of course a school of thought that says don't ask for anything because it gives the creditor time to get their ducks in a row and these things should only be asked for once a claim has been received. However as the AAD way is to avoid court at all costs, asking for something they might not be able to find is IMO a good call.

I notice Di has previously said ask for the DN, NOA and DOA

[RhodriMawr]

Thanks for your responses. With regards to missing the first deadline, I am not sure how the response below affected the deadline. They might be just restarting the process after placing it on hold. I have checked online and my form was received by them and signed for on the 3rd of July.
June 23rd

-

Letter from Mortimer Clarke (dated June 18th) , acknowledging our letter. For the avoidance of doubt, this firm acts on its client's instructions. This firm does not hold the documentation you have requested. We have asked our client to provide them and will come back to you as soon as we can. In the meantime, the matter has been placed on hold and no further action will be taken.

[Roger]

The Protocols state, under Section 4 - Response by the Debtor
"4.2
If the debtor indicates that they are seeking debt advice, the creditor must allow the debtor a reasonable period for the advice to be obtained. In any event, the creditor should not start court proceedings less than 30 days from receipt of the completed Reply Form or 30 days from the creditor providing any documents requested by the debtor whichever is the later."

So it seems to me that they are currently unable to start proceedings without being in contravention of the Protocols. However, I understand that the OP may have missed the original deadline for returning the response to the first LBA, which could complicate matters.

MC could be covering their bases by resending the LBA and hoping the OP doesn't ask for the documents again.

I Agree.

By filling in a New Form you might be giving them a way out of the Legal Process which they have instigated.

I would however make certain that you have recorded delivery details etc.. signature . Then send this proof plus copy of your Old Form back to them
I wouldn't wait 30 days because this might be interpreted as agreeing with their New Form.
The delay in sending I suggest can be weighted against their tactics here

[Still Waving]

Further to my previous post

Section 5 says

"5 DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS
5.2
If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must –

(a) provide the document or information; or
b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,

within 30 days of receipt of the request."

[Still Waving]

The Protocols state, under Section 4 - Response by the Debtor
"4.2
If the debtor indicates that they are seeking debt advice, the creditor must allow the debtor a reasonable period for the advice to be obtained. In any event, the creditor should not start court proceedings less than 30 days from receipt of the completed Reply Form or 30 days from the creditor providing any documents requested by the debtor whichever is the later."

So it seems to me that they are currently unable to start proceedings without being in contravention of the Protocols. However, I understand that the OP may have missed the original deadline for returning the response to the first LBA, which could complicate matters.

MC could be covering their bases by resending the LBA and hoping the OP doesn't ask for the documents again.

[Roger]

I think this might be considered an abuse of process. I don't have personally knowledge of this new process.
The Letter Before Claim is part of this new and changed process where previously we sent the Letter Before Action.

I wouldn't ask them for anything, and certainly not in writing! Nothing New just a copy of what they have already been sent!

It's a Legal Form and part of an approved process.

Right now you are in dispute with them because their response is ignoring your LBC or are they implying that they never received your LBC?

My instinct would be to resend a copy of what you have already sent (with evidence of that LBC being delivered, Their Recorded signature etc..) . And send this copy by Special Delivery!!! Put the BALL firmly back in their court!

My understanding is that it requires their active response, to exchange documents of proof or rebutt your request for these!

Sending out a new BLANK Form is surely against the legal intent of this new process.

[Warwick65]

You have plenty of time but I would be asking for them again
The agreement
the default Notice
the notice of assignment
The deed of assignment

[RhodriMawr]

I can confirm that I have not been sent any of the documents that I requested from Mortimer Clarke Solicitors when I returned the LBA questionnaire.

[Warwick65]

Hi
Back when you had the last LBA and you asked for DN, NOA etc. did they get back to you with those?

You say they have now complied with the S78 request but they will also need the DN and other things to prove their claim. You doo have time to set out another response though

I actually have copies of my RBS Default Notices and they are, IMO technically bad in that they are not set out in the correct way and do not give 14 days from service for remedy. This is where legal advice may be useful because at the end of the day it is up to the judge as to how they interpret the law (rightly or wrongly)

Hopefully Di will be around in the next few days but it is the weekend so she might be busy.

[The Tech Clerk]

Diana Mayhew

[RhodriMawr]

July 2^nd - SAR under GDPR sent to RBS
July 2^nd – Missing P/T’s letter sent to Cabot
July 2^nd – Letter Before Claim form returned to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors disputing the debt and stating non-compliance with s 77 -79 CCA as the reason. Also requested copies of Default Notice, the Notice of Assignment and the Deed of Assignment between RBS and Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd.
July 10^th – Reply from RBS requesting further information to enable them to process the request.
July 14^th – Response sent to RBS with account numbers as requested.
July 16^th - CD received from Cabot in response to SAR request we had made on June 23^rd.
July 23^rd -Letter received from Cabot in response to my missing P/T’s letter, stating that they are satisfied they have complied with my request for information under S77-79 OF THE Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the account is enforceable, and they will not respond to any further correspondence of this nature. “Therefore, please contact Mortimer Clarke Solicitors to discuss your options”.
July 25^th - Letter Before Claim and questionnaire received from Mortimer Clarke Solicitors, dated July 23rd.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Diana - Unfortunately we do not have the answers to default/ termination/ assignment dates.

Let's hope Cabot don't have the answers either

Di

[Roger]

Thanks to everybody for their responses. Diana - Unfortunately we do not have the answers to default/ termination/ assignment dates, but have followed your advice in post #15. Will update on any further news.

WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE ASKING CABOT THROUGH MORTIMER CLARKE!!
It is for CABOT to produce and provide these Documents!
Simply follow Di's advice here because actually your partner is falsely thinking that CABOT are reasonable. They are NOT they will fleece you for every penny that they think they can get out off you.